Exhibit 1 - Resolution No. 2024-007 — Corona City Council, March 6, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
APPROVING GPA2023-0002 (CYCLE 1 OF THE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2024), AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON 5.15 ACRES LOCATED AT 430 WEST

FOOTHILL PARKWAY FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL
(GC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) IN ORDER

TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR

ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND IMPLEMENT

CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO ASSOCIATED TEXT AND
EXHIBITS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA2023-0002)
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2024, the Planning and Housing Commission of the City of Corona (“Planning Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council of the City of Corona (“City Council”) approve GPA2023- 0002 as part of the General Plan Amendments for Cycle 1 for calendar year 2024 to amend the City’s General Plan to change the land use designation on 5.15 acres generally located at 430 West Foothill Parkway (“Property”) from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR), which permits a density of 15-36 dwelling units per acre, and up to 75 du/ac for seniors unit (“General Plan Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment was submitted in conjunction with an amendment to the Mountain Gate Specific Plan (SPA2023-0004), an amendment to the South Corona Community Facilities Plan (CFPA2023-0001), and Precise Plan (PP2023-0006) (collectively referred to herein as the “Proposed Project”); and WHEREAS, on the basis of the initial study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Corona Local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the MND was made available to the public and to all interested agencies for review and comment on January 19, 2024, pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Corona Local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission based its recommendation to adopt the General Plan Amendment on the findings set forth below, and the adoption of the MND; and 2 WHEREAS, on March 6, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan Amendment were heard and the General Plan Amendment was comprehensively reviewed; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment proposes a change to the General Plan Land Use Map based on the findings below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Corona, California as follows:

SECTION 1. CEQA Findings. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative record for the Proposed Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the whole record before it, including the MND, the initial study and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:

A. The MND, initial study and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Corona Local CEQA Guidelines.

B. The MND and initial study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

C. There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project may result in significant environmental impacts.

D. All environmental impacts of the Proposed Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the initial study.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the MND prepared for the Proposed Project Project.

SECTION 3. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Proposed Project and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4. General Plan Amendment Findings. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings:
3 A. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and would not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare for the following reason:
(i) There is adequate infrastructure in place to accommodate the proposed land use change from General Commercial to High Density Residential on the Property.

The Property and the intended use under the High Density Residential designation will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of existing or future developments in the surrounding area, will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards, and will not otherwise have a negative impact on the aesthetics, health, safety or welfare of neighboring uses because future development allowed by the High Density Residential designation will be required to adhere to the development standards required by the zoning of the property as set forth in the Corona Municipal Code.

B. The General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the elements of the General Plan, including the goals and policies stated therein, for the following reasons:
(i) This General Plan Amendment is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-7.1 of the General Plan as it accommodates the development of a diversity of residential housing types that meet the needs of Corona’s population in accordance with the Land Use Plan’s designations, applicable density standards and design and development policies. (ii) This General Plan Amendment is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-3.3 of the General Plan in that it proposes a land use that fits with the current market and facilitates the development of an underutilized property that is surrounded by urban land uses. (iii) This General Plan Amendment is consistent with Housing Element Policy H-1.3 of the General Plan as it will provide sites for residential development, specifically senior housing, so that scarcity of land does not unduly increase the cost or decrease the availability of housing for all segments of the community.

SECTION 5. Approval of General Plan Amendment GPA2023-0002. General Plan Amendment (GPA2023-0002) is hereby approved. The City Council hereby adopts the amendment to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map as set forth on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the findings set forth in this Resolution have been based are located at City of Corona City Hall, 400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882. The custodian for these records is Joanne Coletta, Community Development Director.

SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2024.

Mayor of the City of Corona, California
ATTEST:
__
City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
5 CERTIFICATION
I, Sylvia Edwards, City Clerk of the City of Corona, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Corona, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 th day of March 2024, by the following
vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Corona, California, this 6
th day of March, 2024.

City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
[SEAL]
6 EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
[SEE ATTACHED MMRP (104) PAGES]

CITY OF CORONA

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

GPA2023-0002: General Plan Amendment to change the current land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR, 15-36 du/ac, and up to 75 du/ac for senior units) for 5.15 acres.

SPA2023-0004: Specific Plan Amendment to the Mountain Gate Specific Plan (MGSP) to add a new Senior Citizen Residential (SCR) land use category with corresponding development standards for 5.15 acres.

CFPA2023-0001: Community Facilities Plan Amendment to the South Corona Community Facilities Plan to change the current land use designation from Commercial (C) to Senior Citizen Residential (SCR, maximum target density of 40.5 du/ac) for 5.15 acres.

PP2023-0006: Precise Plan application to review the site plan, architecture, landscaping and other features associated with the development of a 107-unit assisted senior living facility on 5.15 acres.

PROJECT LOCATION: 430 W. Foothill Parkway, located south of West Foothill Parkway and west of South Main Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 114-070-020, 114-070-021 and 114-070-022).

ENTITY OR PERSON UNDERTAKING PROJECT:

O & I Development – Carissa Savant
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920
Irvine, CA 92614
The City Council, having reviewed the initial study of this proposed Project and the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the City Council, and having heard, at a public meeting of the Council, the comments of any and all concerned persons or entities, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find that the proposed Project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, but mitigation measures or revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment and shall be adopted.

The Initial Study and other materials which constitute the records of proceedings, are available at the office of the City Clerk, City of Corona City Hall, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882.

Date: _______________________
Mayor
City of Corona
Date filed with County Clerk: _______________________
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 2 Environmental Checklist

CITY OF CORONA

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: The Ivy Mountain Gate Assisted Senior Living Project • General Plan Amendment (GPA2023-0002)
• Specific Plan Amendment (SPA2023-0004)
• Community Facilities Plan Amendment (CFPA2023-0001)
• Precise Plan (PP2023-0006)
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site is located at 430 W. Foothill Parkway, south of West Foothill Parkway, north of Mountain Gate Drive, east of Highgrove Street, and west of South Main Street. The 5.15-acre Project site consists of three parcels, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 114-070-020, 114-070-021, and 114-070-022. The Project’s location is depicted on Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map.

PROJECT PROPONENT: O & I Development, Carissa Savant
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920
Irvine, CA 92614
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Project Overview
The proposed Project would include development of a two-story, 109,551 square foot (SF) assisted senior living facility with 24-hour care assistance. The Project would consist of 107 units on a 5.15-acre site and would include landscaping, parking, sidewalks, recreation facilities, and utility and stormwater improvements. Approvals required for the Project to develop the proposed assisted senior living facility include a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the Project site land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR), a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to add Senior Citizen Residential (SCR) to the Mountain Gate Specific Plan and change the Project site land use designation on the Mountain Gate Specific Plan Land Use Map from Commercial (C) to Senior Citizen Residential (SCR), a Community Facilities Plan Amendment (CFPA) to the South Corona Community Facilities Plan to change the Project site’s land use designation from Commercial (C) to Senior Citizen Residential (SCR), and a Precise Plan (PP) to review the site plan, architecture, landscaping and wall/fencing of the proposed development. The proposed Project would be developed in one phase.

Project Features
Development Summary
The proposed assisted senior living facility would be two-story and approximately 36 feet in height, measured from finish grade to top of highest roof ridges. Project elevations would include a variety of architectural elements, such as articulated massing and finish material palates. The proposed building is 109,551 SF and would include 107 units. The proposed building results in a total site coverage of 24.6% and a density of 20.77 dwelling units per acre, below the maximum target density of 40.5 du/ac for the senior citizen residential land use category per the South Corona Community Facilities Plan (SCCFP). Figure 7, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the proposed site plan. The 107 units would be comprised of 75 assisted living units and 32 memory care units. Of the 75 assisted living units, there are 38 larger assisted living units which would include a kitchenette while the other 37 assisted living units would consist of only a sink, undercounter The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 3 Environmental Checklist

fridge, and microwave. The proposed memory units do not have kitchenettes. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed floor plans.

Table 1: Unit Summary
Unit Type Bedrooms Bathrooms Unit
Square
Footage
Total
Unit
Types
Assisted Living
Studio 0 1 409-457 20
1B 1 1 501-879 49
2B 2 2 986-
1,138
6 Memory Care
Private
Studio
0 1 408 24
Shared
Studio
0 1 501-565 8
The assisted senior living facility would be two stories with a maximum height of 35 feet and 8 inches, measured from finish grade to top of highest roof ridges. Project elevations would include a variety of architectural elements, including articulated massing and finish material palates, and have design characteristics consistent with Spanish Colonial Style. Conceptual elevations are provided in Figure 8, Elevations.

Recreation and Open Space
The Project would provide approximately 17,315 SF of common outdoor recreational space.

Recreational amenities proposed include a pool, pool house, two patios and two courtyards in the center of the Project site. Additional amenities include outdoor dining areas, a pet area with a shade structure, a citrus grove, a garden bed area, a courtyard with a putting green, and other passive open space areas with paths and benches. Access to these facilities would be limited and solely available via the surrounding building.

Fences and Walls
The Project would include construction of 7-foot high splitface block wall with columns along the eastern property line and a 6-foot high splitface block wall along the northwest property line, which would match the existing 5-foot-high splitface block wall located along the southwest property line. The existing 5-foot-high painted steel fence with CMU columns located along the southern property line would also remain. Additionally, 42-inch-high wrought iron fencing would be installed around the proposed dog park and 5-foot-high wrought iron fencing would be installed around the pool. Terra cotta block accent walls and stucco-finish dividing walls would also be installed throughout the Project site.

Lighting
Outdoor lighting would consist of wall-mounted lighting, pole-mounted lighting, and low-level path lights along the proposed internal roadway and outdoor areas. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. The location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting and glare standards established in the City of Corona’s Municipal Code Section 17.84.070.

Access and Circulation
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 4 Environmental Checklist

The main access to the Project site would be from a proposed 28-foot-wide driveway that would connect to West Foothill Parkway, a public road along the northern portion of the Project site. One internal 28-foot-wide internal street would lead to parking areas located north and south of the building and would run along the western property line. A secondary gated access is provided near the southeast corner of the site, leading to the parking lot of the adjacent commercial center, for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, as well as for public service vehicles and public utility access. The internal street would contain sidewalks along both sides for pedestrian access, as well as pathways that would connect to the proposed recreational areas.

Parking
The Project would provide 109 parking spaces total, four of which would be handicap parking stalls. Additionally, a shuttle service would be provided to facility residents for off-site travel.

Landscaping
The Project would install approximately 36,185 SF of new drought tolerant low water use ornamental landscaping throughout the site. Landscaping would include trees, such as: Tristania Conferta (Brisbane Box), Citrus Spp. (Citrus Trees), Olea europea ‘Swan Hill’ (Fruitless Olive Tree), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Ulmus parvifolia ‘Drake’ (Evergreen Elm), Arbutus marina (Arbutus marina). In addition, a variety of ornamental shrubs would be installed. As shown in Figure 9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping would be installed along Project frontage, off West Foothill Parkway and along the western and eastern boundaries of the Project site.

Landscaping would also be installed around the proposed open space/recreation areas.

Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed development would construct onsite infrastructure improvements that would connect to the existing utility infrastructure in West Foothill Parkway, as follows:

Gas and Electric
The Project would install underground electric lines that would connect to existing infrastructure in West Foothill Parkway. Electricity would be provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE).

Water and Sewer
The Project would install a 4-inch sewer line in the center of the site that would connect to the existing sewer sub within an existing public utility easement. The Project would install a 4-inch water line that would connect to an onsite domestic water backflow preventor to the east which would then connect to the existing 4-inch water line located within a public utility easement.

Stormwater Drainage
The Project would install two landscaped bioretention areas, one in the northeast corner of the site and one in the southwest portion of the site to capture and slow stormwater runoff. Stormwater would flow to a flow-through planter with a biofiltration unit via an onsite drainage system of curbs, gutters, and storm drains, predominately located along and below the proposed onsite drive aisle, then to the existing 36-inch storm drain in West Foothill Parkway. Proposed bioretention and filter inserts would capture, treat, and slow stormwater runoff for the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm.

Construction
Construction activities include excavation, grading, and re-compaction of soils; utility and infrastructure installation; building construction; roadway pavement; and architectural coatings.

Over excavation and grading would occur approximately five feet below the existing grade or lowest cut grade. The proposed Project would require a maximum import of approximately 7,300 cubic yards of soil.

The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 5 Environmental Checklist

Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 18 months, beginning October 2024 and concluding April 2026. Construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays (Monday through Saturday) and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, which would be consistent with the City of Corona’s regulations (Municipal Code Section 17.84.040). Table 2 lists the anticipated construction schedule.

Table 2: Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase
Working
Days
Site Preparation 30
Grading 25
Building Construction 320
Paving 10
Architectural Coatings 160
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

Site Description
The existing conditions of the Project site and surrounding areas are depicted on Figure 3, Aerial View. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site is sparsely vegetated with weeds and low grasses. Landscaped frontages of the Project site along West Foothill Parkway and Mountain Gate Drive include ornamental trees and shrubs. The site is relatively flat with onsite elevations ranging from 1,065 feet in the north to 1,075 in the south.

GENERAL PLAN \ ZONING: The Project site has an existing Corona General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC), which provides for a range of commercial uses that serve local neighborhoods, the community, and visitors and allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5.

The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan, which is intended to serve the shopping needs of the community and of existing residents through provision of retail and service functions.

The Project site is designated as Commercial within the Mountain Gate Specific Plan, which is designated for neighborhood commercial development. This commercial area is planned to meet a range of neighborhood-serving, daily shopping needs. Typical uses would likely include a supermarket, convenience store, drugstore, and various small retail and personal services establishments.

Site Surroundings
The Project site is located within a developed area within the City of Corona as described below:

North: The area north of the Project site is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the General Plan map and is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1-9.6). Existing land use to the north of the Project site is a single-family residential neighborhood. This area is within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan and Mountain Gate Specific Plan.

West: The area west of the Project site is designated as Parks and Open Space Recreational (P) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) on the General Plan map, and zoned as Single Family Attached (SFA) and Parks (P) within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan and the Mountain Gate Specific Plan. Existing land uses adjacent to the northwest of the Project site consist of the Corona Heritage Park and Historical Museum, an art gallery, art studio and an The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 6 Environmental Checklist

antique store; and to the southwest a single-family residential neighborhood.

South: The area south of the Project site is designated as Parks and Open Space Recreational (P) on the General Plan map and zoned as Parks (P) within the Mountain Gate Specific Plan. It is also zoned as Parks (P) within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan. The area is developed with a public park (Mountain Gate Park) and contains a playground, tennis courts, and baseball field.

East: The area directly east of the Project site is designated as General Commercial (GC) on the General Plan map and zoned as Commercial (C) within the Mountain Gate Specific Plan and the South Corona Community Facilities Plan. This area is developed with commercial buildings including a grocery store, a bank, fast-food restaurants and a gas station.

The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 1
City of Corona
Regional Location
Norco
Corona
Proiect • Site
N
0 0.5 2 Miles A
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 8 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Local Vicinity
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 2
City of Corona
- i-l~IIC'l'I
"' j
□ Project Site
i
1 1
l Gomrson ~
Eftmf'nrmy .i S<hool _
~.....,.~-
N
A
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 10 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Aerial View
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 3
City of Corona
D Project Site
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 12 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Existing Site Photos
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 4a
City of Corona
View of the northern side of project site from Foothill Pkwy.

The east side of the site from adjacent property.

The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 14 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Existing Site Photos
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 4b
City of Corona
Existing fence and foliage on the south end of the site on Mountain Gate Dr.

The west side of the site from Dubrina Way.

The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 16 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Existing & Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 5
City of Corona
Existing
Proposed
•M Ull SOL
Ir
u
§
R<Jlj 0
SfR
•M Lill -l
SfR
SfR SfR
OS-R
SfR
OS-R
HOR
SFR SfR
OS-P
~"' SfR :;,'>
~/
SFR SfR
~"' SFR ~Q
~#"'
SfR
SfR
SfR SF
OP.

CE'
OSP
SfR
SfR SfR
~
a'
SfR
SfR
OS-P
SfR
SfR SfR
SfR SFR
N
A
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 18 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Existing & Proposed Zoning
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 6
City of Corona
Existing
Proposed
Project Site
Ontario Ave
Lincoln Ave
Highgrove St
E
LM
M
L
L
L
M
P
M
M
L
LM
LM
L
LM
L
LM
LM
C
L
LM
LM
LM
LM
LM
S
M
S
P
S
LM
LM
LM
LM
P
P
P
C
LM
E
Legend Target Density
E - Estate 0-3 CU/AC - 1.47 DU/AC
L - Low 0-6 DU/AC - 2.96 DU/AC
LM - Low Medium 3-8 DU/AC - 3.90 DU/AC
M - Medium 6-15 DU/AC - 7.88 DU/AC
SCR - Senior Residential
C - Commercial
OP - Office Professional
FS - Fire Station
S - School
P - Park
City of Corona
South Corona Community
Facilities Plan
1 inch = 1,750 feet
µ
SCR
Lincoln Ave
Highgrov
LM
L
L
M
L
LM
S
LM
P
Legend Target Density
E - Estate 0-3 CU/AC - 1.47 DU/AC
L - Low 0-6 DU/AC - 2.96 DU/AC
LM - Low Medium 3-8 DU/AC - 3.90 DU/AC
M - Medium 6-15 DU/AC - 7.88 DU/AC
SCR - Senior Residential
C - Commercial
OP - Office Professional
FS - Fire Station
S - School
P - Park
FL - Flood Control
City of Corona
South Corona Community
Facilities Plan
1 inch = 1,750 feet
µ
City of Corona
Geographic Information Services
Created On: 9/26/2019
Path: F:\Projects\Planning\SoCorona CFD Plan\SoCoronaCFDPlan-2019.mxd 1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
N
A
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 20 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

The Ivy Mountain Gate
City of Corona
Figure 7
Site Plan

PARKING
LONG TERM CARE FACILITIES:
1 PARKING STALL PER EMPLOYEE, PLUS 1 PARKING STALL PER ASSISTED LIVING BED, PLUS 1 GUEST SPACE PER 4 BEDS.
75 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS
75 UNITS, 101 TOTAL BEDS = 101

MEMORY CARE EMPLOYEES PER SHIFT
6 MAX EMPLOYEES ON SHIFT = 6
TOTAL REQUIRED: = 107

BIKE PARKING
SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING:

REQUIRED: 5% OF MOTORIZED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
TOTAL MOTORIZED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES = 107
REQUIRED SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING:
107 x .05 = 6
PROVIDED SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING:

PARKING SPACES = 6

CONTACTS

PROJECT INFORMATION
A.P.N. 114-070-020, 021 & 022
PROPERTY SIZE: 5.15 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: (HDR)-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (SCR)-SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-A
OCCUPANCY GROUPS: R2.1, A2, B, S1
SPRINKLERS: FULLY SPRINKLERED
NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 STORIES
BUILDING GROSS AREA: 109,551 S.F.

PROPOSED LOT COVERED: 24.64% (60% MAX. LOT COVERAGE)
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE/PLANTING AREA 36,185 S.F.

BUILDING HEIGHT: 35'-8 7/8" (40' MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT)
PROPOSED DENSITY: 20.77 DU/AC.

FRONT SETBACK: 25'
SIDE SETBACK: 7.5'

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY PROVIDING 75 ASSISTED LIVING DWELLING UNITS AND 32 MEMORY CARE DWELLING UNITS. THE ASSISTED AND MEMORY CARE COMMUNITY WILL BE FULLY LICENSED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. THE COMMUNITY WILL OFFER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF 24-HOUR STAFFING AND SUPPORT FOR ITS RESIDENTS.
2 2
2 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
OVERALL LOT AREA: 194,200 S.F

REQUIRED PROVIDED
()()
3 2
1 1
1 1
1 MOUNTAIN GATE DR
SITE

W FOOTHILL PKWY

MAIN ST

REXFORD WY

S MAIN ST

ANTHER DR

EXISTING MANHOLE (SEE CIVIL)

EXISTING UTILITY VAULT (SEE CIVIL)

KEY NOTE LEGEND
1 2
3 4
5 EXISTING STREET LIGHT

EXISTING WATER VALVE (SEE CIVIL)

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT (SEE CIVIL)
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 EXISTING CURB

EXISTING GUTTER

EXISTING POWER POLE AND GUY WIRE

EXISTING ADJACENT DRIVE AISLE

EXISTING SIDEWALK
PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN (SEE A200)

EXISTING EASEMENT
PROPOSED PARKING LOT LIGHTING (SEE ESO1)

PROPOSED FUTURE EV CHARGING STATION

PROPOSED STAMPED AND STAINED PAVERS

PROPOSED BIOPOD BIOFILTER (SEE CIVIL)

PROPOSED GREASE INTERCEPTOR (SEE CIVIL)

PROPOSED WATER METER AND BACKFLOW (SEE CIVIL)
06 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
RTH
3 1
0 (4) _/ /
cs)_/
0 "-...__ PP.OFERT'f
lit<[
,·•·■-~-~·~·-•-.. ••
. -· --- --- .... ,, ..
\
I
. .
■
.
i
:
:
:
:
.
\
\ DIAL-A- RIDE

ADJACENT

NRCELS ZONED
C-CO•,OAERIC.1.l
DISTNG USE: C
• ·I u PROPERTY 7 _,. ,j_, , I I ll,<E SE1/lACK ', " ; : h /) •"~ _ _L_ _ - - _ - 1 - _ - _ - _:::~;;\ ---=r 7 f •• ' I , , / , , '" /'-:P-:r:--rVC , - I; .., ill ~ \ ,.:-: (27)
"',,'-129f--.... I '"" ................... .........

SHAD(
.-S1RtJCTUP.E#2
"'-
2,~
■
:
a:
.
:
:
:
■
.,lit• :i.•·-= • I •• t
i I ■■•■■•■■ 1'7'-8•"1 ■•■■•■■•
! 72 73 74 75 76
11 & ! I ~--·.,__._ , r-k- : 1 : ! *ffi °id'- 0" : : ~ 65 66 67 6B 69 ■ • "' I ~ : I f ' .: •
1 , i I i ··•·1:? ........................ i .. ..
' 1 FJ. 11071.00 7 : I • :C •· ■■•■■•■■•■■•■■•■■•••
POOL MOUSE: 62-4 s; .

TO: Al ~L~ G ARE.A.· 109,551 SF .-t----@--- i. : '
:5
0 ::,
£~cff, ,ro,, "':rm-~~-------' ! " ! 57 &. ,, '° ,, ,·l.

I ,-----' 9 50 51 52 53 :-
I @ 7 I EXl1l#I ■ • ■■ ■■ ■■ t••t ■■•·
, , ,..;,~~~■- 14\ ----------- 0
.................... ~~~•ti•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•·····•··•··•·~•··•·~ .......................................... . - 1 1 ~ (1 7 1 _!, .. _!_t!,!t!,!t!.,!lt.!,!1•.!...•t!.•t!•.!!•!!la 1:11:.t11~•!!•~•~1!!_t!,!.t cit!_at.! !!a~•j_ ~•

ADJACE'ITPARCEL
ZOi'EO P-PAP.KS
n1STING US[: OS- R
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 22 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

The Ivy Mountain Gate
City of Corona
Figure 8
ElevationsCOLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL
R-1
B-1
B-2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1
ROOF
BODY

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

BORAL CLAY TILE
2 PIECE MISSION

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
#OC
#HC

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WRO
COAT
TRIM
#2
TR-2 FASCIA/GUTTERS
#2107-20

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE
TR-1 TIMBER ELEMENTS BENJA
ST-3
TRIM
TRIM
BODY
C-1 CMU BASALITE, SPLIT FACE #34
C-2 CMU BREEZE/SCREEN BLOCK
TR-2 B-1 TR-3 R-1 ST-1 TR-1
ST-2
B-2 ST-3 W-1 C-2
30' - 11 1/4"
28' - 4 3/8"
14' - 9 1/8"
6 12
6 12
6 12
4 12
4 12
3 12
4 12
R-1 B-1
B-2
TR-3 TR-2
ST-1
ST-3
W-1 MTL-1 TR-1
11'-5"
21' - 2"
35' - 8 7/8"
4 12 TYP.
27' - 10"
23' - 3 1/2"
TR-1 B-1 R-1 MTL-1 TR-1 TR-2 W-1
4 12 TYP.
27' - 0 1/4"
23' - 10"
ST-2 B-1 R-1 TR-3 W-1 TR-1 TR-2 ST-1 ST-3 MTL-1 TR-1
4 12
3 12 4
12 3
12 3
12 21' - 2"
27' - 9 3/4"
23' - 10"
TR-2

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
ST-2
ST-1
8' -
TR-1

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
4/25/2023 10:12:55 AM
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #1
SCALE: 1/8" =
MONUME
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #2

COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL COLOR
R-1
B-1
B-2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1
ROOF
BODY

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

BORAL CLAY TILE
2 PIECE MISSION

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
OLD WORLD #3

BENJAMIN MOORE
#OC-70 WHITEWATER BAY

BENJAMIN MOORE
#HC-48 BRADSTREET BEIGE
VENETO
EARTH
BLACK

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WROUGHT IRON TO BE POWDER COATED COLOR: FLAT BLACK

TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE
#2119-20 BLACK BERRY
TR-2 FASCIA/GUTTERS BENJAMIN MOORE
#2107-20 CHOCOLATE CANDY BROWN

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE EARTH
TR-1 TIMBER ELEMENTS BENJAMIN MOORE SOLID STAIN,
#ES-60 MAHOGANY
ST-3
TRIM
TRIM
BODY
C-1 CMU BASALITE, SPLIT FACE #345 BASE-LIGHTWEIGHT
C-2 CMU BREEZE/SCREEN BLOCK RED BROWN
TR-2 B-1 TR-3 R-1 ST-1 TR-1
ST-2
B-2 ST-3 W-1 C-2
30' - 11 1/4"
28' - 4 3/8"
14' - 9 1/8"
6 12
6 12
6 12
4 12
4 12
3 12
4 12
R-1 B-1
B-2
TR-3 TR-2
ST-1
ST-3
W-1 MTL-1 TR-1
11'-5"
21' - 2"
35' - 8 7/8"
4 12 TYP.
27' - 10"
TR-1 B-1 R-1 MTL-1 TR-1 TR-2 W-1
4 12 TYP.
27' - 0 1/4"
23' - 10"
ST-2 B-1 R-1 TR-3 W-1 TR-1 TR-2 ST-1 ST-3 MTL-1 TR-1
4 12
3 12 4
12 3
12 3
12 ' - 2"
' - 9 3/4"
23' - 10"
TR-2

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
ST-2
ST-1
B-1
8' - 0"
TR-1 B-2
6'-0"

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MONUMENT SIGN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SHADE STRUCTURE #2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
VE
E
B
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WROUGHT IR

COATED COLO

TRIM BENJAM
#2119-20

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE E
ST-3
R-1 B-1
B-2
TR-3 TR-2
ST-1
ST-3
W-1 MTL-1 TR-1
11'-5"
21' - 2"
35' - 8 7/8"
4 12 TYP.
27' - 10"
23' - 3 1/2"
TR-1 B-1 R-1 MTL-1 TR-1 TR-2 W-1
4 12 TYP.
27' - 0 1/4"
23' - 10"
ST-2 B-1 R-1 TR-3 W-1 TR-1 TR-2 ST-1 ST-3 MTL-1 TR-1
4 12
3 12 4
12 3
12 3
12 21' - 2"
27' - 9 3/4"
23' - 10"
TR-2

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
ST-2
ST-1
8' - 0"
TR-1

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0

MONUMENT
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE
SHADE STRUCTURE #2
FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL COLOR
R-1
B-1
B-2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1
ROOF
BODY

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

BORAL CLAY TILE
2 PIECE MISSION

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
OLD WORLD #3

BENJAMIN MOORE
#OC-70 WHITEWATER BAY

BENJAMIN MOORE
#HC-48 BRADSTREET BEIGE
VENETO
EARTH
BLACK

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WROUGHT IRON TO BE POWDER COATED COLOR: FLAT BLACK

TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE
#2119-20 BLACK BERRY
TR-2 FASCIA/GUTTERS BENJAMIN MOORE
#2107-20 CHOCOLATE CANDY BROWN

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
ST-2
ST-1
B-1
8' - 0"
TR-1 B-2
6'-0"

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

OTB DATE:

CHECKED BY:

SUBMITTAL DATE:

REVISIONS: THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION.

PRELIMINARY -

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
b.hills architecture, PC
3156 south bown way
boise | idaho | 83706
p.208.258.6150
www.bhillsarch.com
b hills .
architecture
The Ivy at Mountain Gate
430 WEST FOOTHILL PARKWAY
CORONA, CA. 92881 22170
CH, KS
CH

04.25.23 PARK IV GROUP
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MONUMENT SIGN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"SHADE STRUCTURE #2

COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL COLOR
R-1
B-1
B-2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1
ROOF
BODY

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

BORAL CLAY TILE
2 PIECE MISSION

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
OLD WORLD #3

BENJAMIN MOORE
#OC-70 WHITEWATER BAY

BENJAMIN MOORE
#HC-48 BRADSTREET BEIGE
VENETO
EARTH
BLACK

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WROUGHT IRON TO BE POWDER COATED COLOR: FLAT BLACK

TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE
#2119-20 BLACK BERRY
TR-2 FASCIA/GUTTERS BENJAMIN MOORE
#2107-20 CHOCOLATE CANDY BROWN

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL
R-1
B-1
B-2
ST-1
ST-2
W-1
ROOF
BODY

STONE VENEER

COLUMN/WALL CAP

WINDOWS

BORAL CLAY TILE
2 PIECE MISSION

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH

ELDORADO STONE,

FIELDEDGE

ELDORADO STONE,

CHISELED EDGE

VINYL FRAMES
#OC
#HC

EXTERIOR STUCCO
20/30 SAND FINISH
TR-3 DOORS
MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WRO
COAT
TRIM
#2
TR-2 FASCIA/GUTTERS
#2107-20

WAINSCOT SILLS ELDORADO STONE,

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
ST-2
ST-1
8' -
TR-1

EAST/WEST ELEVATION NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION
4/25/2023 10:12:55 AM
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #1
SCALE: 1/8" =
MONUME
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SHADE STRUCTURE #2
n
p
B Elm EE EE
El Em EE EE
7 ~
c=7
,-------, - L_
[
[
- l
c=7
,-------,
[_
,-------,
r
I
c=7
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 24 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

The Ivy Mountain Gate
City of Corona
Figure 9
Landscape Plan
r--------
r--· --. '-----------------------------------------------------+.----1- ' ' ' , ' ' ' ------------------------------------------------------+--(----1 0 =
~ FF oD7 -~-_._....J.J,.__ -_ --..I ♦
LEGEND
0 Existioo street trees to remain where there is no conflict with siQht t rianQle of new driveway
0 Citrus cur~ entry drive - alternatinQ size, citrus trees, accett pots 0 Citrus Qrove
© Accenttree
0 ParkinQ lot shade tree
© ScreeninQtree
0 ScreeninQ shrub at trash enclosure
© ScreeninQ shrub at property line
© Wall dimbinQ vine planted on east side
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS Overall lot Area:

Required L.andsc.ape Area (10%):

Provided landscape Area:

Proposed Parking Spaces:

ParkinQ lot Trees Required (I per 3 spaces):

ParkinQ lot Trees Providffi:
194,200SF
19,420 SF
36,18SSF(l 8.6%)
107Spaccs
35Trecs
SOTn~cs

PROPOSED TREE SPECIES
TristaniaConfert.i -- Brisbane b(»(
24' box
Gtrus spp. - Citrus trees
36' and 24" box
Olea europea 'Swan Hill' -- Fruitless olive tree36' boK Quercus agrifulia - Coast l~ Ollk
24' box
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' - EvefQreen Elm
IS gallon
Arbutus marina - Arbutus marina
24' box
W.iterUse
Moderate Water
Moderate Water
lowWater
lowWater
lowWater
lowWater

PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES
-
General Planting Area
AloeSpp.

Ceanothus 'Skylark' - Blue blossom ccanothus
Sisyrinchium beUum -- Blue eyed Qrass
Bougainvillea spp.-- Bougainv~ lea
Vitus Californica- Califofnia wild grape
Rhamnus cal. 'Eve Case' -- California coffeeberry
ROSII c.11l ifornic.11 - California wild rose
Dudleya pulve rulenta - Chalk dudleya
Misc.an thus saochariflorus - Eulalia grass
Fremontodendron 'CA Glory' -- Flannel bush
Pcnnisetum alopecuroides -- Fountain Qr ass
Stllchys b~ntina -- Lamb's ear
Myoporum parvifolium -- Myoproum
CareK tumulicola - Gray sedge
Artcostaphylos hookerii 'Monterey carpet'
--ScreeninQ Shrubs Hetermomeles arbutifolia --Toyon
Rhamnus califomica - California coffeebeny
Wa ll Climbing Vines
Ficus pumih1 - Climbim;i Fig
Water Use
lowWater
low Water
Very l owWater
low Water
lowWater
lowWater
low Water
lowWater
Moderate Water
VerylowWater
lowWater
Moderate-Water
low Water
lowWater
low Water
lowWater
lowWater
Moderate Water
/)
/ /
I '
I
I
I
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 26 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Utility Plan
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 10
City of Corona
Ill
Ill
--.....,____
,
)
,
,
I
~--l LEGEND:
,, - - - LIMIT OF WORK
--- - -- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
--SS -- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE
--SD -- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE
--W -- PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE
--FW -- PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE
r:: [QJ STORM DRAIN CURB INLET
• UTILITY MANHOLE
N
A Ii STORM DRAIN DROP INLET
.., ........................
• ~ ............. - FIRE HYDRANT '· '·, ◄ THRUST BLOCK
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 28 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure 11
City of Corona
T
---
LEGEN>;
~ --- LIMIT OF WORK
--....___ _
)---- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

MATCH LINE ' I
/ GRADE BREAK
--xxx-- EXISTING CONTOUR LINE

PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE

PROPOSED GRADE ELEVATION

PROPOSED GRADE SLOPE

STORM DRAIN CURB INLET

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

STORM DRAIN DROP INLET
---xxx---
)(
N
A
xxxxx TC
XXX.XX FS
~
•

EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS
TOTAL AREA = 194,200 SF
CUT VOLUME = 5,500 CY
FILL VOLUME = 12,800 CY
NET FILL VOLUME = 7,300 CY
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 30 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 31 Environmental Checklist

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52, the City sent out letters to 32 Native American individuals of 23 tribes that could have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project area. As discussed in Section 17, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians was the only tribe to provide the city with suggested mitigation measures related to Tribal Cultural Resources, which resulted in the addition of mitigation measure TCR-1.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The City’s Staff, having undertaken and completed an initial study of this Project in accordance with the City’s "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)”, has concluded and recommends the following:

The proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
__ The proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, the potentially significant effects have been analyzed and mitigated to below a level of significance pursuant to a previous EIR as identified in the Environmental Checklist attached. Therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

X The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to below a level of significance. Therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
__ The proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, however, a previous EIR has addressed only a portion of the effects identified as described in the Environmental Checklist discussion. As there are potentially significant effects that have not been mitigated to below significant levels, a FOCUSED EIR will be prepared to evaluate only these effects.

There is no evidence that the proposed Project will have the potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The following indicates the areas of concern that have been identified as “Potentially Significant Impact” or for which mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Air Quality
Transportation
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Hazards / Hazardous
Materials
Noise
Public Services
Utilities
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Agricultural Resources
Greenhouse Gases
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
The Ivy Mountain Gate IS/MND
City of Corona 32 Environmental Checklist

Wildfire
Energy
Date Prepared: January 11, 2024
Prepared By: Environmental Planning Development Solutions, Inc.

Konnie Dobreva, JD, Danielle Thayer and Jazmin Rodriguez Prepared For: City of Corona (Lead Agency)
Planning & Development Department
400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Suite 120
Corona, CA 92882
Lead Agency Contact Person: Rocio Lopez, Consulting Planner Phone: (951)736-2293

AGENCY DISTRIBUTION UTILITY DISTRIBUTION
(check all that apply)
Responsible Agencies Southern California Edison
Trustee Agencies (CDFG, SLC, CDPR, UC)
State Clearinghouse (CDFG, USFWS, Redev. Projects)
AQMD
Pechanga
Soboba
WQCB
X Other: Rincon Band of Luiseňo Indians
Southern California Edison
Adriana Mendoza-Ramos, Esq.

Region Manager, Local Public
Affairs
1351 E. Francis St.

Ontario, CA 91761
Southern California Edison
Karen Cadavona
Third Party Environmental Review
2244 Walnut Grove Ave.

Quad 4C 472A
Rosemead, CA 91770
□
□
Environmental:

City of Corona 33 Environmental Checklist

Note: This form represents an abbreviation of the complete Environmental Checklist found in the City of Corona CEQA Guidelines. Sources of reference information used to produce this checklist may be found in the City of Corona Planning and Development Department, 400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA. fjhh

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with any land use plan/policy or agency regulation (general plan, specific plan, zoning)
b. Conflict with surrounding land uses
c. Physically divide an established community
Discussion:
a. Conflict with any land use plan/policy, or agency regulation (general plan, specific plan, zoning) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located adjacent to West Foothill Parkway, residential neighborhoods, park uses, and commercial uses. The Project would develop a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units with 24-hour care assistance. The Project site has an existing Corona General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) and a zoning of Commercial per the Mountain Gate Specific Plan. The General Commercial (GC) land use designation provides for a range of commercial uses that serve local neighborhoods, the community, and visitors. In addition, the Project site is designated as Commercial (C) within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan. The Project includes a GPA, SPA, and CFPA to change the site’s land use designation and allowable uses as described below. However, the proposed development would be consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, specific plan, and community facilities plan as discussed further below.

General Plan. The Project site has an existing Corona General Plan land use designation of GC which provides for a range of commercial uses that serve local neighborhoods, the community, and visitors and allows a maximum FAR of

0.5. Since Project implementation would result in the development of the site with residential uses that would be inconsistent with the underlying land use designation, the Project requires and includes a GPA that would amend the existing land use category to “High Density Residential.” Per the City’s General Plan, residential development in the High Density Residential land use category accommodates multi-family residential (e.g., garden apartments and condos, including common open space, landscaping, and other site amenities). Allowable density for the areas designated as High Density Residential is 15 to 36 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 75 dwelling units per acre for senior units.

The proposed Project would include 107 senior units at 20.8 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed range under High Density Residential. As such, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use designations and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific and Community Facilities Plans. The Project site is within the Mountain Gate Specific Plan (MGSP) and South Corona Community Facilities Plan (SCCFP).

MGSP. The Project site is currently designated as Commercial (C) in the MGSP. Per the MGSP, the purpose of the C designation is intended to provide for development of neighborhood commercial development. This commercial area is planned to meet a range of neighborhood-serving, daily shopping needs. Typical uses would likely include a supermarket, convenience store, drugstore, and various small retail and personal services establishments. Since Project implementation would result in the redevelopment of the site with residential uses that would be inconsistent with the underlying land use designation, the Project requires and includes an SPA that would create a new Senior Citizen Residential (SCR) designation and amend the Project site’s existing land use category to SCR. SCR is intended to accommodate multiple family dwellings for senior citizen assisted (including memory care) and independent living, restricted to persons 55 years of age or older. Consistent with the SCCFP, the maximum allowable target density for the SCR area would be 40.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project would include 107 senior units at 20.8 dwelling units per acre, which is below the 40.5 du/ac maximum target density proposed for the SCR. Additionally, as described in Table AES-1, the proposed Project would comply with applicable setbacks, building heights, and wall specifications.

As such, the Project would be consistent with the proposed designation and would not conflict with the MGSP. Therefore, potential conflicts with the MGSP would be less than significant.

SCCFP. The Project site is currently designated as Commercial (C) in the SCCFP. Per the SCCFP, the purpose of the C designation is intended to serve the shopping needs of the community and of existing residents through provision of retail and service functions. Since Project implementation would result in the redevelopment of the site with residential uses □ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Environmental:

City of Corona 34 Environmental Checklist

that would be inconsistent with the underlying land use designation, the Project requires and includes a CFPA that would amend the existing land use category to SCR. SCR is intended to accommodate housing that provides amenities, services, and activities suitable for residents over the age of 55 years. Allowable density for the SCR area would be up to

40.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project would include 107 senior units at 20.8 dwelling units per acre, which is below the maximum target density of 40.5 du/ac established for the SCR land use category. As such, the Project would be consistent with the proposed designation and would not conflict with the SCCFP. Therefore, potential conflicts with the SCCFP would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with surrounding land uses
No Impact. The Project would develop a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units with 24-hour care assistance. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped but is surrounded by highly urban uses.

The Project site is bound by a major roadway (W. Foothill Parkway) followed by a residential neighborhood to the north, a Heritage Park and Historical Museum and other historical landmarks to the west, a park to the south, and commercial buildings to the east. Thus, the Project would be complimentary to and consistent with surrounding diverse uses, including park, commercial, and residential uses, and would increase connectivity through the implementation of sidewalks. In addition, the Project would not install any infrastructure that would obstruct the surrounding land uses. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with surrounding land uses. c. Physically divide an established community
No Impact. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road were built through an established community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such could include lack of a, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It could also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped but is surrounded by highly urban uses. The Project site is bound by a major roadway (W. Foothill Parkway) followed by a residential neighborhood to the north, a Heritage Park and Historical Museum and other historical landmarks to the west, a park to the south, and commercial buildings to the east.

The proposed Project would include the development of a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance. The Project would include a GPA to change the existing land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR) (see Figure 5, Existing General Plan Land Use and Proposed General Plan Land Use); a SPA to add Senior Citizen Residential to the Mountain Gate Specific Plan and change the land use from Commercial to Senior Citizen Residential (see Figure 6, Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning), and a CFPA to the South Corona Community Facilities Plan to change the land use from Commercial to Senior Citizen Residential. As mentioned previously, the Project would be complimentary to and consistent with surrounding diverse uses, including park, commercial, and residential uses, and would increase connectivity through the implementation of sidewalks. In addition, the Project would not install any infrastructure that would result in a physical division of or obstruction to the surrounding land uses. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no impact related to physical division of an established community.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
City of Corona General Plan 2020-2040, June 2020. Accessed: https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departmentsdivisions/planning-division/general-plan-update City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
Environmental:

City of Corona 35 Environmental Checklist

2. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial growth
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people Discussion:
a) Induce substantial growth
Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project would construct a two-story building consisting of 107 residential units. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Corona has a residential population of 157,005 and 50,604 housing units as of January 2023. In addition, it is estimated that the City has an average of 3.19 persons per household. However, per the applicant, the assisted living facility would accommodate approximately 113 residents. Further, because senior housing uses are not a typical residential use, the Project would likely attract existing residents from the City of Corona than induce new population growth.

The 2020-2045 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) assumed the population within the City of Corona to grow from 165,800 in 2016 to 185,100 in 2045 (approximately 12 percent). The addition of 113 new residents would represent a population increase of 0.07 percent of SCAG’s anticipated growth and the new housing units would result in a 0.21 percent increase in residential units within the City. The Project site is a vacant lot within an entirely urban, developed area. Thus, while the Project itself would result in population growth, it would not induce any unplanned population growth. As the Project consists of development that would generate less than one percent growth, potential impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of the City that is already served by existing roadways and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended to serve areas beyond the Project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and does not support any people or housing. The Project would develop the site with a two-story building consisting of 107 residential units. No people or housing would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project. Conversely, housing would be developed by the Project. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact related to displacement and replacement housing.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark. Accessed: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

SCAG. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG 2020). Accessed:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx. □ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 36 Environmental Checklist

3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Fault /seismic failures (Alquist-Priolo zone) /Landslide/Liquefaction b. Grading of more than 100 cubic yards
c. Grading in areas over 10% slope
d. Substantial erosion or loss of topsoil
e. Unstable soil conditions from grading
f. Expansive soils
Discussion:

The following section is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report completed by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) in November 2022 (Appendix D).
a. Fault/seismic failures (Alquist-Priolo zone) /Landslide/Liquefaction Less than Significant.

Fault/seismic failures (Alquist-Priolo zone)
The Project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site (Terracon 2022). The closet known active fault to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture is the Elsinore Glen Ivy Fault, located approximately 1.55 miles from the site. As such, the amount of motion expected at the Project site can vary from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault and the magnitude of the earthquake. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults.

Structures built in the City of Corona are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Implementation of CBC standards, included as PPP GEO-1, would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. Moreover, consistent with the CBC, the Project is required to implemental recommendations from the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix D), which includes recommendations related to earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and infiltration systems. Because the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, as described under PPP GEO-1, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking.

Landslides
Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that occur during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.

According to the City of Corona General Plan EIR Deep-seated Landslide Hazard Map, the Project area is not identified as a highly susceptible landslide hazard area. Additionally, the Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that hazards from slippage or landslide from proposed construction of the Project is unlikely (Terracon 2022). Therefore, the Project □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental:

City of Corona 37 Environmental Checklist

would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides and impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements.

Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.

According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report, the Project site is located in an area of low liquefaction susceptibility on Riverside County liquefaction hazard maps (Terracon 2022). The liquefaction potential at the site is considered low due to the anticipated depth to groundwater and density of the on-site soils (Terracon 2022). No groundwater was encountered in the borings while drilling, or for the short duration in which they remained open, to the maximum depth of

51.5 feet. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, included as PPP GEO-1, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process.

With compliance with existing regulations and the Project location, impacts related to seismically related ground failure and liquefaction would be less than significant.
b. Grading of more than 100 cubic yards
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would consist of a cut volume of 5,500 cubic yards (CY) and a fill volume of 12,800 CY thus resulting in a net fill volume of 7,300 CY. As such, the Project would result in grading of more than 100 CY. However, the Project would be required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. Further, impacts associated with grading have been analyzed throughout this MND in Sections 5, Air Quality and 16, Greenhouse Gases, both of which were determined to have less than significant impacts.

As such, impacts related to grading would be less than significant. c. Grading in areas over 10% slope
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include grading of two sloped areas—the northernmost area which has an approximate 12-foot slope ranging from 1065 to 1053 descending to W Foothill Parkway and the southern portion has an approximate 12-foot slope ranging from 1087 to 1075 ascending up to Mountain Gate Drive. As such, the Project would consist of grading areas over 10% slope. However, as mentioned previously, the Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. Additionally, the Project would incorporate construction BMP’s through adherence to CBC grading and site preparation recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation such as removal of undesirable and/or unstable soils to be recompacted to decrease the likelihood of settlement after construction. Further, impacts associated with grading have been analyzed throughout this MND in Section 5, Air Quality and Section 16, Greenhouse Gases, both of which would result in less than significant impacts. As such, impacts related to grading would be less than significant.
d. Substantial erosion or loss of topsoil
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Excavations and grading activities that would be required for the Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.

Chapter 15.36.290 of the City’s Municipal Code implements the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Regional Board Order No. R8-2010-0033, as amended, (MS4 Permit) and establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for construction and grading activities for the Project.

To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by these City and RWQCB regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer), which would be implemented by PPP WQ-1. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil. Erosion control BMPs include use of: silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code stormwater management requirements, RWQCB SWPPP requirements, and installation of BMPs, which would be implemented by the City’s Project review by the City of Corona’s Planning and Development Department, Development Services Division, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Environmental:

City of Corona 38 Environmental Checklist

e) Unstable soil conditions from grading
Less than Significant Impact. Unstable soil conditions have the potential to result in hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence and liquefaction or collapse. Landslides are the downhill movement of masses of earth and rock and are often associated with earthquakes; but other factors, such as the slope, moisture content of the soil, composition of the subsurface geology, heavy rains, and improper grading can influence the occurrence of landslides. As discussed previously, implementation of the Project and associated grading is unlikely to result in hazards such as landslides.

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As mentioned previously, the liquefaction potential at the site is considered low due to the anticipated depth to groundwater and density of the on-site soils, therefore hazards related to liquefaction including lateral spreading from Project implementation and associated grading are also considered low (Terracon 2022).

Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of an earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in basin is lowered. Groundwater was not detected at the maximum depth explored of 50 feet below existing grade (Terracon 2022). The Project would not pump water from the Project area, however, slight subsidence is anticipated as a result of soil excavation and compaction. However, recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report would be implemented during grading and construction and the Project would be required to comply with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, included as PPP GEO-1, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process.

Thus, with compliance with existing regulations and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) impacts related to unstable soil conditions from grading, including landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less than significant.
f) Expansive soils
Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that near site soil, which consists of medium dense to dense silty clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel, resulted in an expansion index of 24 indicating a “low” potential for expansion (Terracon 2022). Therefore, the Project site has low potential for expansive soil. Additionally, the Project would require compliance with the CBC requirements, as implemented by the Corona Municipal Code and verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.11.020 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

PPP WQ-1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. As listed in Section 4, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Environmental:

City of Corona 39 Environmental Checklist

4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

a. Violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements b. Deplete groundwater supplies
c. Alter existing drainage pattern
d. Increase flooding hazard
e. Degrade surface or ground water quality
f. Within 100-year flood hazard area
g. Increase exposure to flooding
h. Exceed capacity of storm water drainage system
Discussion:
a. Violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements Less than Significant Impact.

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

These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a SWPPP. Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs which would reduce erosion or siltation. Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation, include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and stockpile management.

Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs, as ensured through the City’s plan check and permitting process, are included as PPP WQ-1, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 40 Environmental Checklist

Operation
The proposed Project would include the development of a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality. However, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP, as included in PPP WQ-2 with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.

Section 13.27.120 of the City’s Municipal Code (and PPP WQ-2) requires implementation of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) based on the anticipated pollutants that could result from new development and redevelopment projects.

The Project’s WQMP was created to comply with the requirements of the City of Corona, the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan, and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. The BMPs would include pollutant source control features and pollutant treatment control features.

The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of stormwater quality, an underground bioretention/biofiltration system is proposed. The Project site is split into two drainage management areas. The Project would install two landscaped bioretention areas, one in the northeast corner of the site and one in the southwest portion of the site to capture and slow stormwater runoff. Stormwater would flow to a flow-through planter with a biofiltration unit via an onsite drainage system of curbs, gutters, and storm drains, predominately located along and below the proposed onsite drive aisle, then to the existing storm drain system in West Foothill Parkway. Proposed bioretention and filter inserts would capture, treat, and slow stormwater runoff for the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm.

With implementation of NPDES requirements and the WQMP, pursuant to the City Municipal Code, (included as PPP WQ-2); which would be verified during the plan check and permitting process for the proposed Project, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Deplete groundwater supplies
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the Temescal Groundwater Basin. Development of the proposed Project would introduce approximately 156,466.3 SF of impervious surfaces to the site. However, the proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system of curbs and gutters that would convey runoff to a bioretention unit that would capture and filter runoff. In addition, the Project includes 36,185 SF of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. c. Alter existing drainage pattern
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream, river or other body of water. Thus implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. In addition, a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to control drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the proposed Project.

As discussed in the WQMP (Appendix I) existing drainage patterns would remain unchanged, which would result in a decrease in time of concentration due to increase in imperviousness. To address this increase, the WQMP proposes a biofiltration system that would capture runoff prior to discharge offsite. The Project is anticipated to result in a flow rate of

0.305 cubic feet per second (cfs) in drainage management area 1 (DMA 1) and 0.433 cfs in DMA 2 during the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event. However, the installation of onsite landscaping, a biofiltration system, and catch basins would be designed to accommodate the increased flow volume.

Additionally, according to the FEMA’s FIRM Map #06065C1352G, the Project site is zoned as Flood Zone X, area with minimal flood hazard. The City would review the Project permit applications to ensure the proposed development would not be subject to significant flood hazard and structures would be floodproofed and would not impede or redirect flood flows. As such, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing drainage pattern. d) Increase flooding hazard
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the Project site is classified as Flood Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. In addition, the Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a body of water such as a natural stream or river that would increase the potential for flooding. Further, the Project site is located approximately 24 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the Project is not located within a tsunami zone. Similarly, a seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, Environmental:

City of Corona 41 Environmental Checklist

or other artificial body of water. The nearest body of water is Lake Matthews, approximately 6.5 miles to the west. The Project site is not within vicinity of any impounded bodies of water; therefore, the Project is not at risk of a seiche.

Also, as discussed previously, the Project would introduce approximately 156,466.3 SF of impervious surfaces to the site, which would increase stormwater runoff from the Project site. However, the proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to a biofilter unit that would capture and filter runoff, then to the existing storm drain system in West Foothill Parkway. In addition, the Project includes 36,185 SF of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. The Project would comply with City and NPDES requirements as identified in the WQMP (Appendix I). Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the post construction stormwater requirements would be confirmed during Project plan check prior to Project approval. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on flooding hazards on- or offsite.
e) Degrade surface or ground water quality
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Water supplies to the Project site are provided by the City of Corona’s Utilities Department (CUD), formerly known as the Department of Water and Power (DWP), who receives their primary source of water from the Temescal Basin. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Corona found that there are sufficient water supplies to meet demands during average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through 2045. As described in Section 12, Utilities, calculations based on population projections using gallons per day per capita determined that the CUD is anticipated to have adequate water supplies available to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on the obstruction or conflict with a groundwater management plan. f) Within 100-year flood hazard area
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, according to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project site is classified as Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. However, a SWPPP and WQMP would be prepared and implemented as part of the Project to ensure pollutants are contained and would not be released from the Project site during construction. Post construction stormwater infrastructure would ensure capture and treatment of storm flows up to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation in a flood hazard zone.
g) Increase exposure to flooding
Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. Thus, the Project would not increase exposure to flooding from proximity to a stream or river. In addition, a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to control drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the proposed Project. As discussed in the WQMP (Appendix I) existing drainage patterns would remain unchanged, which would result in a decrease in time of concentration due to increase in imperviousness. As discussed previously, the Project would introduce approximately 156,466.3 SF of impervious surfaces to the site, which would increase stormwater runoff from the Project site. However, the proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to a biofilter unit that would capture and filter runoff, then to the existing storm drain system in West Foothill Parkway. In addition, the Project includes 36,185 SF of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. The Project would comply with City and NPDES requirements as identified in the WQMP (Appendix I). Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the post construction stormwater requirements would be confirmed during Project plan check prior to Project approval.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on flooding on- or offsite. h) Exceed capacity of the storm water drainage system
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction, and that pollutants would not discharge from the Project site, which would reduce potential impacts to storm water drainage systems and water quality to a less than significant level.

The proposed Project would introduce approximately 156,466.3 SF of impervious surfaces to the Project site. Proposed bioretention facilities would mitigate the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. This system would filter coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). Also, although the project is anticipated to increase runoff, LID design features including the infiltration system Environmental:

City of Corona 42 Environmental Checklist

would provide more capture volume than the increased in runoff. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.36.290 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Riverside County NPDES Permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of Corona staff to confirm compliance.

PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project applicant shall have a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 13.27.120 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
City of Corona General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2019. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2020. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/department-of-water-and-power/businesses/planning-forour-future Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2023). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map 06065C1352G. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by BKF Engineers, April 2023. (Appendix I).

5. AIR QUALITY:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with air quality plan
b. Violate air quality standard
c. Net increase of any criteria pollutant
d. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
e. Create objectionable odors
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 43 Environmental Checklist

Discussion:

The following section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo prepared by LSA in May 2023 and revised in November 2023 (Appendix A).
a. Conflict with air quality plan
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The 2022 AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin.

As described in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), for purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed Project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed Project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a Project’s density is within the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the 2022 AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

The proposed Project would develop the site with a two-story building consisting of 107 residential units. According to the 2021 American Housing Survey (AHS), the average household size in Riverside County from 2017–2021 is 3.2 persons thus the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memo conservatively used this estimate to analyze air quality and projected greenhouse gas emissions. However, as further described in Section 2, Population and Housing, the assisted living facility would accommodate approximately 113 residents, therefore the air quality generation rates presented in this IS/MND are more conservative than what the proposed development would produce within the City. As such, this limited level of growth would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the 2022 AQMP.

Also, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds. As described in the analysis below and detailed in Appendix A, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed Project would be less than significant. b. Violate air quality standard
Less than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal and State ozone standards and particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds, a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
Nitrogen Oxides (Nox) 100 55
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Sulfur Oxides (Sox) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo (Appendix A) Construction
Environmental:

City of Corona 44 Environmental Checklist

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating/striping. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

Construction activities would generate emissions from construction equipment and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 18 months of construction.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling and is included as PPP AQ-1.

In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 that governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents, would be required and is included as PPP AQ-2. As shown in Table AQ-2, construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, regional construction related air quality emissions would result in a less than significant impact.

Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emissions Summary
Construction
Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions
(lbs/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Site
Preparation

1.2 40.0 29.4 <0.1 7.9 1.1 4.0 1.0
Grading 0.9 28.0 19.8 0.1 4.0 0.8 1.7 0.8
Building
Construction

1.0 19.7 19.3 <0.1 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.6
Paving 0.6 13.4 11.4 <0.1 0.2 0.6 <0.1 0.5
Architectural
Coating

4.4 1.1 2.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Maximum
Daily
Emissions

5.4 40 29.4 0.1 9.0 5.0
SCAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
75 100 550 150 150.0 55.0
Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo (Appendix A) Operation
Development of the 107 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table Environmental:

City of Corona 45 Environmental Checklist

AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and would be less than significant.

Table AQ-3: Project Operational Emissions
Operational
Activity
Pollutant Emissions
(lbs/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile
Sources

1.0 0.9 7.7 <0.1 0.7 0.1
Area Sources 3.1 0.1 6.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy
Sources
<0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project
Operational
Emissions

4.1 1.4 14.0 <0.1 0.7 0.1
SCAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo (Appendix A) c. Net increase of any criteria pollutant
Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal and State ozone standards and particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown above in Table AQ-1.

As mentioned previously, construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the construction activities including construction equipment and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 18 months of construction. However, as illustrated in Table AQ-2 above, construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants.

Project buildout and operation would also result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented above in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria pollutants that would be below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. As such, the Project’s construction and operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts and would be less than significant.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis.

According to the SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the Environmental:

City of Corona 46 Environmental Checklist

emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site is located in SRA 22, Norco/Corona.

Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes.

Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing residences that are adjacent to the west of the site, approximately 25 meters (80 feet) west of the Project boundary.

Construction
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily and were used to evaluate LSTs. Localized construction emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-4.

Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor determines the local emission thresholds. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing residences approximately 25 meters (80 feet) west of the site. These receptors (distance from the Project property line to the building) are the same as the minimum distance provided in the lookup tables (25 meters); therefore, 25 meters (82 feet) was used. The Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (included as PPP AQ1 and PPP AQ-2), which would require implementation of erosion avoidance and minimization through dust control activities (watering, limiting construction during high-wind events, reducing disturbances, etc.) and use of paints that minimize potential harmful emissions. As shown in Table AQ-4, maximum daily construction emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST thresholds, therefore impacts to sensitive receptors from construction emissions would be less than significant.

Table AQ-4: Project Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On Site Project Emissions 40 28.3 8.8 5.0
Localized Significance
Thresholds 220 1,354 9.0 6.5
Emissions Exceed
Thresholds?
No No No No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo (Appendix A) Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to stationary mobile sources. Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational localized significance thresholds. The proposed Project would operate a building consisting of 107 residential units, which do not involve vehicles idling or queueing for long periods. As shown in Table AQ-5, maximum daily construction emissions from the proposed Project would also not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST thresholds. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, impacts related to sensitive receptors from operational emissions would be less than significant.

Environmental:

City of Corona 47 Environmental Checklist

Table AQ-5: Project Localized Operational Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On Site Project Emissions 0.5 6.7 <0.1 <0.1
Localized Significance
Thresholds 220 1,354 2.5 2.0
Emissions Exceed
Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memo (Appendix A) e. Create objectionable odors
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop 107 residential units that would not result in other emissions such as those leading to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is identified as SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, use of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate some nuisance odors. However, these odors would be temporary and would dissipate as odors disperse, and therefore, would not affect a substantial number of people. Also, the short-term construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts relating to both operational and construction emission activity leading to odors would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High-Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Environmental:

City of Corona 48 Environmental Checklist

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, prepared by LSA, May 2023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix A) South Coast Air Quality Management District Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008).

Accessed: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf

6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
c. Increase the total daily vehicle miles traveled per service population (population plus employment) (VMT/SP) above the baseline level for the jurisdiction
d. Cause total daily VMT within the study area to be higher than the No Project alternative under cumulative conditions (General Plan Condition) e. Change in air traffic patterns
f. Traffic hazards from design features
g. Emergency access
h. Conflict with alternative transportation policies
Discussion:

The following section is based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis prepared by EPD Solutions in March 2023 and revised in November 2023 (Appendix H).
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop the Project site with 107 residential units. The trip generation for the Project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation 11th Edition, 2021. As shown in Table T-1, the Project would generate approximately 264 daily trips including 16 trips during the AM peak hour and 20 trips during the PM peak hour.

Transit Services. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) operates several public services through all cities in Riverside County, including Corona. The bus operator that primarily serves the City of Corona is the Corona Cruiser which consists of three lines (Corona Cruiser Blue Line, Corona Cruiser Red Line, Corona Red Line). Additionally the Riverside Transit Agency and Orange County Transportation Authority contain intercity routes that run through the City. The Corona Cruiser Blue Line is the closest to the Project site. The Corona Cruiser Blue Line runs from McKinley Street southwest to Mountain Gate Drive, and north to River Road. It operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 7:09 p.m. and on weekends from 8:52 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. with hourly headways. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Environmental:

City of Corona 49 Environmental Checklist

approximately 180 feet southwest, located at Mountain Gate Park, and is served by the Corona Cruiser Blue Line. These existing transit services would serve Project residents. The proposed 107 residential units would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not occur.

Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Continuing Care Retirement
Community1
DU 2.47 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.12 0.19
Project Trip Generation
Senior Residential Care Facility
(Assisted Senior Living Facility)
DU 264 10 6 16 8 12 20
DU = Dwelling Unit
1Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021, Land Use Code 255 – Continuing Care Retirement Community.

Source: VMT Screening Analysis, Appendix H
Bicycle Circulation. The City of Corona General Plan Figure CE-3, Bikeway Plan, identifies a Class II bicycle lane along W Foothill Parkway that runs adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, the General Plan identifies a potential future route along Mountain Gate Drive, south of the Project site. The Project would not impact existing or planned facilities, including temporary or operational, direct or indirect, obstructions. There are no other existing or proposed bicycle facilities within or adjacent to the Project site. Thus, impacts related to existing bicycle program, plan, ordinance, or policies would not occur from the Project.

Pedestrian Facilities. The Project site is located in a developed urban area with sidewalks available along all nearby roadways. The proposed onsite roadway system includes sidewalks throughout the Project site that would connect to the offsite sidewalks. This would facilitate pedestrian use and walkability. Therefore, the proposed Project would improve, and not conflict with, pedestrian facilities. Thus, impacts related to pedestrian facilities would not occur. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines that became effective on July 1, 2020 and requires that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) be evaluated for impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for its evaluation.

VMT Screening Thresholds
The City of Corona Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines lists screening thresholds to determine if land use projects would require a VMT assessment. The City’s Guidelines also provide criteria for projects that could screen out of further analysis and would be considered to have a less-than significant impact on VMT. If a Project meets one of the criteria below, it is considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT and does not require further analysis.

1. The Project serves the local community.

2.The Project is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA).

3. The Project is located in a low VMT generating TAZ.

The City’s VMT Analysis Guidelines, were used in the evaluation of the Project VMT analysis. The VMT analysis determined that the Project would meet Screening Criteria One as it would serve the local community. The Project consists of a senior assisted senior living facility, which involves people with limited mobility, meaning they will be utilizing local shops and facilities when travelling off site. For those intending to travel off site, chauffeur services would be provided on behalf of the facility, further reducing the number of individual trips. Further, while the City of Corona does not specify Environmental:

City of Corona 50 Environmental Checklist

assisted living facilities for project type screening, many jurisdictions including the City of Menifee and City of Covina specifically call out assisted living facilities as land uses that aim to serve the local community. As such, the VMT Screening Analysis determined that the Project would serve the local community. According to the City’s guidelines, projects that serve the local community have the potential to reduce VMT and would not be required to complete a VMT assessment. As such, the Project would screen out of further analysis because and would result in a less than significant impact on VMT impacts per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c. Increase the total daily VMT per service population (population plus employment) (VMT/SP) above the baseline level for the jurisdiction
Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the City of Corona Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines lists screening thresholds to determine if land use projects would require a VMT assessment. The City’s Guidelines also provide criteria for projects that could screen out of further analysis and would be considered to have a less-than significant impact on VMT. The VMT analysis determined that the Project would be a locally serving use as it is intended to serve the existing community and thus would not require further VMT analysis. As such, impacts related to VMT, including total daily VMT per service population would be less than significant. d. Cause total daily VMT within the study area to be higher than the No Project alternative under cumulative conditions (General Plan Condition)
Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the VMT analysis determined that the Project would be a locally serving use as it is intended to serve the existing community and thus would not require further VMT analysis. As such, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.
e. Change in air traffic patterns
No Impact. The closest airport is Corona Municipal Airport which is approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the Project site.

As illustrated in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Corona Municipal Airport, the Project site is not located within any land use compatibility zones. As such, the Project would not obstruct or change air traffic patterns. f. Traffic hazards from design features
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would develop and operate 107 new residential units on the site. None of the proposed structures would include incompatible uses such as farm equipment. The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. The onsite drives would be developed in conformance with City design standards.

The City’s construction permitting process includes review of Project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. For example, the design of the onsite circulation would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility is provided to the fire code standards. Also, access to the Project site would be provided by a 28-foot-wide driveway along West Foothill Parkway that would be designed in compliance with the City’s design standards to provide for adequate turning for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks. As a result, impacts related to geometric design feature would be less than significant. g. Emergency access
No Impact. The proposed Project would develop and operate 107 residential units that would be permitted and approved in compliance with existing safety regulations, such as the California Building Code and Fire Code (as integrated into the City’s Municipal Code) to ensure that it would not result in inadequate emergency access.

The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. During construction, West Foothill Parkway would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities would not occur.

As described above, operation of the proposed Project would also not result in inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from West Foothill Parkway. The driveway and on-site circulation constructed by the Project would be evaluated through the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards that provides adequate turning space for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The CFD would review the development plans as part of the plan check and permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). As a result, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would not occur.
h. Alternative transportation policies
No Impact. The Project would develop a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units with 24-hour care assistance. The Project would operate as a senior assisted senior living facility intended to serve the existing Environmental:

City of Corona 51 Environmental Checklist

local community and would provide chauffeur services for those intending to travel off site reducing individual trips. As described in Section 1, Land Use, the proposed development would be consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, specific plan, and community facilities plan and would not conflict with alternative transportation policies.

Thus, there would be no impact to alternative transportation policies.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. “Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Corona Municipal Airport.” October 2004. Accessed: https://rcaluc.org/current-compatibility-plans Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., Revised November 2023 (Prepared March 2023). (Appendix H).

7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Endangered or threatened species/habitat
b. Riparian habitat or sensitive natural community
c. Adversely affects federally protected wetlands
d. Interferes with wildlife corridors or migratory species e. Conflict with local biological resources or ordinances f. Conflict with any habitat conservation plan
Discussion:

The following section is based on the General Biological Assessment (GBA) completed by Hernandez Environmental Services (HES) in December 2022 (Appendix B). The biological assessment consisted of a literature review and review of aerial photographs and topographic maps of the Project site and surrounding areas. A five-mile radius was used to identify sensitive species with the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Lists, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant lists to obtain species information for the Project area. Additionally, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was reviewed for information on known occurrences of sensitive species within Riverside County. HES also conducted a field survey of the Project site on September 1, 2022. The findings of the biological assessment are discussed below.
a. Endangered or threatened species/habitat
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Biological resources on the Project site were evaluated in the GBA and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis (Appendix B) to ensure the proposed Project is consistent with the MSHCP and to analyze potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special‐ status species and associated habitat. Additionally, the GBA included a field survey conducted on September 1, 2022.

The GBA describes the Project site as consisting of disturbed, vacant land characterized by disturbed/developed areas.

The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Therefore, the Project is required to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP. The MSHCP consistency □ ~ □ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 52 Environmental Checklist

analysis identified that the Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or Cell Group. Further, the Project site is not located within plan-defined areas requiring surveys for criteria area species, narrow endemic species, amphibian species, or mammalian species. However, the site is located within the MSHCP Additional survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (HES 2022).

A focused habitat suitability survey was conducted on the Project site for the presence of burrowing owl and found that the Project site does not provide suitable burrows/nesting opportunities for burrowing owl. No burrow surrogates or fossorial mammals were observed on or near the site. Further, no burrowing owl signs such as molted feathers, pellets, prey remains, or whitewash were found during the habitat assessment. As such, the habitat survey concluded that the site does not provide suitable burrowing owl habitat. However, since the Project is located in MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is being incorporated into the Project to require a 30-day preconstruction survey prior to the commencement of Project activities.

A records search of a five-mile radius around the Project site was used to identify sensitive species with the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Lists, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant lists to obtain species information for the Project area. According to the CNDDB, a total of 41 sensitive species of plants and 63 sensitive species of animals have the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Of the 41 sensitive plant species, a total of 18 plant species are listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. Table BIO-1 below lists these species, their listing status and their presence on site.

Table BIO- 1: Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Species Name Listing Status Presence on Project
Site
Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia
villosa var. aurita)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) Federally Endangered, state Threatened, and CNPS 1B.1 listed
plant species
Not Present
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia
pumila)
Federally Endangered and ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus
brauntonii)
Federally Endangered and ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Malibu baccharis (Baccharis
malibuensis)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
thread-leaved brodiaea (brodiaea
filifolia)
Federally Threatened and state
Endangered Species and is ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Lucky morning-glory (Calystegia
felix)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Smooth tarplant (Centromadia
pungens ssp. Laevis)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
San Fernando Valley spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi var.

Fernandina)
Endangered Species and is ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe
parryi var. parryi)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Slender – horned spineflower
(Dodecahema leptoceras)
Federally and state listed
Endangered Species and is ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Santa Ana River woollystar
(Eriastrum densifolium ssp.

Sanctorum)
Federally and state listed
Endangered Species and is ranked
1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant
Inventory
Not Present
Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis
forbesii)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Not Present Environmental:

City of Corona 53 Environmental Checklist

var. puberula) Plant Inventory
Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.coulteri)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Jokerst’s monardella (Monardella
australis ssp. Jokerstii)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Allen’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta
aurea ssp. Allenii)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia
stellaris)
Ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare
Plant Inventory
Not Present
Source: General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).

The field survey did not identify suitable habitat present on the Project site for any of the above plant species. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive plant species.

Of the 63 sensitive species of animals identified, 17 are listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. These species, their listing status, and their presence on site are listed in Table BIO-2 below.

Table BIO- 2: Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur on Project Site Species Name Listing Status Presence on Project
Site
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius
tricolor)
State listed Threatened Species
and listed by the CDFW as a
Species of Special Concern
Not Present
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus) Federally listed Endangered Species and a CDFW Species of
Special Concern
Not Present
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) CDFW Species of Special Concern Not Present San Diego fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta sandiegonensis)
Federally listed Endangered
Species
Not Present
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) State listed Threatened Species Not Present Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae)
Federally listed Threatened
species
Not Present
Western snowy plover (Charadrius
53um53ha53rines nivosus)
Federally listed Threatened
species and a CDFW Species of
Special Concern
Not Present
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)
Federally listed Threatened and
state
listed Endangered species
Not Present
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus)
Federally listed Endangered
Species, state listed Candidate
Endangered Species, and a
CDFW Species of Special Concern
Not Present
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
stephensi)
Federally listed Endangered and
state listed Threatened Species
Not Present
Southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
Federally and state listed
Endangered Species
Not Present
Quino checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas 53um53ha quino)
Federally listed Endangered
Species
Not Present
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
State listed Endangered and
CDFW Fully Protected species
Not Present
California black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis coturniculus)
State listed Threatened Species
and CDFW Fully Protected species
Not Present
Steelhead-southern California DPS
(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.
10)
Federally listed Endangered
Species and state listed Candidate
Endangered
Not Present
Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica)
Federally listed Threatened
Species and CDFW Species of
Special Concern
Not Present
Riverside fairy shrimp
(Streptocephalus woottoni)
Federally listed Endangered
Species
Not Present
Environmental:

City of Corona 54 Environmental Checklist

Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus)
Federal and state listed
Endangered Species
Not Present
Source: General Biological Assessment (Appendix B).

The field survey did not identify suitable habitat present on the Project site for any of the above animal species. As mentioned previously, since the Project site is located within the MSHCP Additional survey area for burrowing owl, MM BIO-1 would be implemented to require a 30-day preconstruction survey prior to the commencement of Project activities.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive animal species.

The Project site contains ornamental shrubs and trees that can be utilized by nesting birds and raptors during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15. Therefore, the proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activities that occur during the nesting/breeding season of birds protected by the MBTA could result in a potentially significant impact if requirements of the MBTA are not followed.

However, implementation of mitigation measure Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure MBTA compliance and would require a nesting bird survey to be conducted prior to the commencement of construction during nesting season, which would reduce potential impacts related to nesting avian species and native wildlife nursery sites to a less than significant level.

In summary, the Project has potential to impact burrowing owl and nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. b. Riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community No Impact. Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers, streams, or wetland areas. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies or are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species. As described in the GBA (Appendix B), the Project site does not contain any streams, drainages, or riparian habitats. Thus, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from Project implementation. c. Adversely affects federally protected wetlands
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project site and adjacent areas are located within a developed urban area and do not contain natural wetlands (HES 2022).

Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. d. Interferes with wildlife corridors or migratory species Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors are areas where wildlife movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints and corridors provide access to resources such as food, water, and shelter. Animals use these corridors to move between different habitats and provide avenues for wildlife dispersal, migration, and contact between other populations. As mentioned previously, the Project site is disturbed and is surrounded by developed land uses. Further, no wildlife movement corridors were found to be present on the Project site nor does the Project site support conditions for migratory wildlife corridors or linkages (HES, 2022). There are no rivers, creeks, or open drainages near the site that could function as a wildlife corridor. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in impacts related to wildlife movement or wildlife corridors.

However, the Project site contains shrubs and some ornamental trees that could be used for nesting by common bird species that are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3511, and 3515 during the avian nesting and breeding season that occurs between February 1 and September 15. The provisions of the MBTA prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require that if commencement of vegetation clearing occurs between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of activities to confirm the absence of nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.
e. Conflict with local biological resource policies or ordinances Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project is subject to all applicable federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources and tree preservation. Additionally, the Project is required to comply with the tree preservation standards as listed in Section 12.22.070 of the Municipal Code and with the Urban Forest Management Plan, which ensures implementation of best management practices as reflected by the professional

I I I I
Environmental:

City of Corona 55 Environmental Checklist

tree care industry standards for the planting, maintenance, removal, protection, pruning, and preservation of trees on City owned or controlled property, including Shared Responsibility Trees. Further, Shared Responsibility Trees include those which meet all the following criteria: (1) planted on public or private property; (2) planted within a Parkway; and (3) planted at the City’s express written direction and approval. The Project would include the removal of trees, some of which are located along West Foothill Parkway. While some trees would remain in place as illustrated in Figure 9: Landscape Plan, the Project would be required to comply with the Urban Forest Management Plan for all removed trees as included as PPP BIO-1, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Therefore, impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. f. Conflict with any habitat conservation plan
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the MSHCP; therefore, it is subject to applicable provisions of the MSHCP as specified in response (a) above. The MSHCP provides for the assembly of a Conservation Area consisting of Core Areas and Linkages for the conservation of covered species. The Conservation Area is to be assembled from portions of the MSHCP Criteria Area, which consist of quarter-section (i.e., approximately 160-acre) Criteria Cells, each with specific criteria for the species conservation within that Cell. The Project site is not within the MSHCP Criteria Area; therefore, no Cell or Criteria analysis is required. While no burrowing owls currently occupy the site, in the event of subsequent occupation, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would sufficiently offset impacts to the species. No sensitive plant or animal species were identified on-site during the field survey. No on-site riparian or riverine areas were detected on the Project site. In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the MSHCP; as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP BIO-1: Urban Forest Management Plan. Prior to construction, the applicant shall verify with the City that the Project is compliant with guidelines and procedures for the care and protection of Shared Responsibility Trees as described under the Urban Forest Management Plan.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Survey. A 30-day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the City of Corona Planning and Development Department, Planning Division for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that no burrowing owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding Project activities. If burrowing owl are found to have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of construction, the Project proponent will immediately inform Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and will need to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for approval by RCA and the CDFW prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a preconstruction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.

If burrow owl is found, the same coordination with RCA and/or CDFW described above will be necessary.

MM BIO-2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If grading activities occur within the active breeding season for birds (February 1–September 15), the Project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall be submitted to the City of Corona Planning and Development Department, Planning Division prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The nesting survey shall include the Project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by Project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed during nesting bird surveys, the qualified biologist shall establish a 200-foot buffer around the active nests, and a biological monitor shall visit the site once a week during ground disturbing activities to ensure all fencing is in place and no nesting birds are being impacted.

Sources
City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
General Biological Assessment, prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services, December 2022. (HES 2022) (Appendix B)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act1918.

Environmental:

City of Corona 56 Environmental Checklist

8. MINERAL RESOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Loss of mineral resource or recovery site
Discussion:
b. Loss of mineral resource or recovery site
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation (CDOC), the Project site is in an area generally classified as Sand and Gravel Resource Area and Gravel Resource Areas. Although the region is classified for these resources, the Project site is not currently or planned for mineral extraction. Additionally, according to the City of Corona’s General Plan 2020-2040, mineral extraction has been a part of Corona’s history since 1888, when the Temescal Rock Quarry was opened to furnish rock for streets in Los Angeles and other nearby towns. Mineral resources found in the City of Corona have included crushed rock, sand, and gravel and small amounts of silver, lead, zinc, coal, and gypsum. The Project site is in an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4) which includes areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other zone. Therefore, minerals may be present, but information is not available to make a determination. However, the Project site is not currently used or planned for mineral extraction. As such, the Project would result in no impact.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California Department of Conservation (CDOC), 2023. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification.

Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources City of Corona General Plan 2020-2040, June 2020. Accessed: https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departmentsdivisions/planning-division/general-plan-update □ □ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 57 Environmental Checklist

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
b. Risk of accidental release of hazardous materials
c. Hazardous materials/emissions within ¼ mile of
existing or proposed school
d. Located on hazardous materials site
e. Conflict with Airport land use plan
f. Impair emergency response plans
g. Increase risk of wildland fires
Discussion:

The following section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. in October 2022, included as Appendix G and on the Phase II Limited Site Investigation prepared by Terracon in October 2023, included as Appendix K.
a. Transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
Less than Significant Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements that are implemented by the City during building permitting for construction activities. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, routine transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves operation of a 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility consisting of 107 new residential units, which would involve routinely using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental:

City of Corona 58 Environmental Checklist

not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Risk of accidental release of hazardous materials
Less than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the Project site by Terracon Consultants Inc. in October 2022 (TCI 2022). The Phase I ESA did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs, or historic RECs.

The Phase I ESA identified that the site was historically used for agricultural purposes up until the early 1990s. As such, there is potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers were used on site and traces of such chemicals may still be present if misapplied. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, trace amounts of the compounds left in the soil and/or groundwater from herbicides and pesticides are generally below riskbased screening levels. In addition, pesticide and/or herbicide misuse or vegetative stress were not observed on the site (TCI 2022). Based on the historical agricultural uses, it was recommended that the Project implement a soil management plan (SMP), that details procedures and protocols for onsite management of soils only if contaminated soil were to be encountered during grading. However, a Phase II Limited Site Investigation (LSI) was conducted to further assess presence of chemicals in the on-site soil. The Phase II collected and tested soil samples for Organochlorinated Pesticides (OCPs), Herbicides and RCRA Metals using standard Environmental Protection Agency methods. The Phase II determined the following: concentrations of organochlorinated pesticides and herbicides were not detected above current residential and commercial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) in soils; concentrations of Metals including barium, chromium, lead and mercury were within the range of naturally occurring background concentrations and/or were below residential, commercial, and construction worker ESLs. Arsenic was determined to be equal to or above residential, commercial and construction worker ESLs, however, the ESLs are based on toxicity values and as such, the arsenic ESLs are relatively low. Further, according to the Phase II, the Department of Toxic Substances Control established an upper-bound arsenic concentration of 12 mg/Kg for Southern California. Thus based on this regional background concentration, the detected arsenic concentrations are generally within or below the naturally occurring “background” concentrations. As such, the arsenic concentrations detected are considered naturally occurring. Based on these findings, the Phase II concluded that further investigation is not warranted.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined thresholds for Radon in the form of three Zones; Zone 1, which is considered the zone with the highest radon risk includes buildings with an average indoor screening level of 4 picoCuries of radon per liter per air (pCi/L) or higher, Zone 2, which is of moderate risk includes buildings with an average indoor screening level of between 2 pCi/L and of 4 pCi/L, and Zone 3, which is the lowest risk includes buildings with an average indoor screening level of 2 pCi/L or less. In addition, the EPA has determined that the action level (the level at which homes shall be fixed) is 4 pCi/L. The Phase I ESA included a Radon Records Review and determined that based on Riverside County’s radon risk levels, the Project site is located in an EPA Zone 2. As such, the Project site is considered to have a moderate potential for elevated indoor concentrations of radon gas. However, according to Federal Area Radon Information, the average residential radon concentration in Riverside County has been determined to be 0.117 pCi/L, and the maximum identified concentration has been determined to be 0.45 pCi/L in both the first and second floor of homes (TCI 2022). The study which determined these factors included tests in 12 homes throughout Riverside County, none of which exceeded the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L (based on exposure of 18 hours per day for 40 years) nor did they exceed the EPA Zone 2 level of 2 pCi/L to 4 pCi/L. Based on these findings, the Project is unlikely to exceed the average indoor screening levels that would create a significant hazard to residents.

Construction
Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of BMPs during construction are implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1). Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
•Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; •Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction; •Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; •Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and Environmental:

City of Corona 59 Environmental Checklist

•Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed 107 residential units and recreation areas include use of limited hazardous materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not create a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Hazardous materials/ emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Less than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the Project site is Dwight D. Eisenhower Elementary located approximately 0.33 miles southwest of the Project site and Citrus Hills Intermediate School, approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site. However, as described previously, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. The emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis discussed above, and the emissions generated from the Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards.

Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near a school, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Located on a hazardous materials site
No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site, the Project site is not located on or nearby any hazardous material sites listed, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. e) Conflict with an airport land use plan
No Impact. The Project site is not within two miles of an airport. The closest airport is the Corona Municipal Airport, which is approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not located within any land use compatibility zone for the nearest airport, nor is it within an airport safety zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project areas, and no impacts would occur. f) Impair emergency response plans
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. During construction of the Project driveway, West Foothill Parkway would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation.

Direct access to the Project site would be provided from West Foothill Parkway, which is a 4-lane arterial roadway that is adjacent to the Project site. The interior roadway would be designed to accommodate fire department access in coordination with the City fire authorities and would be a minimum of 28 feet wide. The Project is also required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the City Municipal Code and the Fire Department prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) included as Chapter 15.12 in the City’s Municipal Code. As a result, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
g) Increase risk of wildland fires
No Impact. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zones mapping, the Project site is not within a Very High Environmental:

City of Corona 60 Environmental Checklist

Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In addition, the Project site is located within an area that’s mostly developed area. Additionally, the Project site is located within an urbanized area and development of the site with residential uses would not result in impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2023. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/firehazard-severity-zones-maps/ City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., October 2022. (TCI 2022a) (Appendix G).

Phase II Limited Site Investigation, prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., October 2023. (TCI 2022b) (Appendix K).

10. NOISE:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Exceed noise level standards
b. Exposure to excessive noise levels/vibrations
c. Permanent increase in ambient noise levels
d. Temporary increase in ambient noise levels
e. Conflict with Airport Land Use Plan noise contours
Discussion:

The discussion below is based on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared by LSA in May 2023 (Appendix E).

The following noise regulatory setting includes local, state, and federal standards applicable to the Project site.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix E), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, long term noise level measurements were taken at two locations in the Project study area (see Figure N-1 Noise Monitoring Locations). The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis describes that the background ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by transportation related noise from West Foothill Parkway and Mountain Gate Drive. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
Environmental:

City of Corona 61 Environmental Checklist

The existing noise levels are provided in Table N-1.

Table N-1: Long Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Site No. Location
Daytime
Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening
Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise
Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Levels (dBA
CNEL)
LT-1
Southwest Albertsons at 260 West
Foothill Parkway, on a light pole
bordering Mountain Gate Drive,
approximately 65 ft away from
Mountain Gate Drive centerline.

51.8 – 56.4 51.1 – 56.2 43.5 – 51.6 57.4
LT-2
Northeast of Project site, west of
Wells Fargo at 330 West Foothill
Parkway, approximately 65 ft away
from West Foothill Parkway
centerline.

67.4 – 72.0 66.3 – 69.6 57.2 – 68.3 72.2
ST-1
4 Eastern edge of the Corona Heritage
Park and Museum, near a fence
entrance, approximately 190 ft away
from West Foothill Parkway
centerline.

49.7 – 54.3 48.6 – 51.9 39.5 – 50.6 54.5
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E Note: Noise measurements were conducted from May 2 to May 3, 2023 starting at 12:00 p.m. 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4 Short-term measurement data estimated based on corresponding long-term.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Mountain Gate Dr
Panther Dr
W Foothill Pkwy
Main St
- Project Site Boundary
- Short-term Noise Monitoring Loca�on
LT-1 - Long-term Noise Monitoring Loca�on
ST-1
LT-1
ST-1
LT-1
LT-2
ST-1
The Ivy Mountain Gate Figure N-1
City of Corona
Environmental:

City of Corona 63 Environmental Checklist

This page left intentionally blank.

Environmental:

City of Corona 64 Environmental Checklist

Noise Element of the General Plan
The following applicable goals and policies to the proposed Project are from the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan.

Goal N-1: Protect residents, visitors, and noise-sensitive land uses from the adverse human health and environmental impacts created by excessive noise levels from transportation sources by requiring proactive mitigation.

N-1.1: Reduce noise impacts from transportation noise sources through the design and daily operation of arterial road improvements, enforcement of state motor vehicle noise standards, and other measures consistent with funding capabilities.

Require site design features and structural building enhancements in the development of residential and other “noise sensitive” land uses that are to be located adjacent to major roads or railroads.

Goal N-2: Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive ambient noise exposure, including vibration on residents, employees, visitors, and “noise sensitive” land uses.

N-2.1: Consider noise and vibration levels in land use planning decisions to prevent future noise and vibration and land use incompatibilities. Considerations may include, but not necessarily be limited to, standards that specify acceptable noise limits for various land uses, noise reduction features, acoustical design in new construction, and enforcement of the California Standards Building Code provisions for indoor and outdoor noise levels.

Table N-2: Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines N-2.2: Require that in areas where existing or future ambient noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, all development of new housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other “noise sensitive” uses shall include site design, building enhancements, buffering, and/or mitigation to reduce noise exposure to within acceptable limits.

Land Uw Cateqories Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Categories Uses <55 1 60 I 65 I 10 1 75 I so>
Single Family. Duplex A A 8 8 D D D
Residential Multiple Family A A 8 8 C D D
Hotel, Morel Lodging A A 8 C C D D
Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank,
Regional, District Restauranl. Movie A A 8 8 C C D
Theatre
Commercial Commercial Retail. Bank.

Regional. ViHage Restauranl. Movie A A A A 8 B C
District, Special Theatre
Commercial Office Build ing, R&D,
Office. Institution Professional Offices, City A A A B 8 C D Office Build ing
Rec. Institutional Amphitheatre. Concert B B C C D D D
Civic Center Auditorium, Mee1inQ Hall
Commercial Amusement Park,
Recreation M iniature Golf, Sports A A A B 8 D D
Club. Equestrian Center
Commercial, Auto Ser.-ice Station,
General, Special Auto Dealer, Manu- A A A A s B 8 Industrial and facturing. Warehousing.

Institutional Who lesale. Utilities
Institu tional Hospital Church, Ubrary, A A s C C D D General Schools' Classroom Open Space
Local, Community. and A A A 8 C D D Reqional Paric:s
Golf Co urse, Cemetery,
Open Space Nature Centers WildlifE' A A A A s C C
Reset'le-s and Habit.1t
Zone A:. Clearly Compatible: Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings in>'l'.lllled are of conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

Zone B. Normally Compatible. New construction should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features are determined.

Com,entional construction, with dosed windows and fresh air supply o r air conditioning, will normally SUffiCE'.

Zone C. Normally Incompatible: New constrtJction or de-.e1opment should generally be discouraged. If new constrtJCtion or development does proceed, a de1ailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed n0tse insulaoon features inclJded., the design.

Zone D: Clearly I nco.,...,alible: New deYelopment should generally not be undertaken.

Environmental:

City of Corona 65 Environmental Checklist

N-2.6: Require development that generates increased traffic and substantial increases in ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City Noise Ordinance.

N-2.7: Require construction activities that occur in close proximity to existing “noise sensitive” uses, including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses, to limit the hours and days of operation in accordance with the City Noise Ordinance.

Goal N-3: Discourage the spillover or encroachment of unacceptable noise levels from mixed use, commercial, and industrial land uses on to noise sensitive land uses.

N-3.3: Require the design of residential and nonresidential parking structures used on-site and adjacent to noise sensitive land uses incorporate noise reducing features to minimize vehicular noise from encroaching outside the structure.

City of Corona Municipal Code
Noise Standards. The City’s standards for noise impacts in neighboring residential areas are found in Chapter 17.84.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, which sets forth exterior and interior noise limits of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively, for transportation noise sources, such as roadway and airport, at residential and other sensitive land uses.

Performance standards for stationary noise sources are summarized in Table N-3.

Table N-3: Stationary Noise Standards
Types of Land Use
Maximum Allowable Noise Levels
Exterior Noise Level (L) Interior Noise Level (L)
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.

Single-, Double- and
MultiFamily Residential55 dBA
50 dBA 45 dBA 35 dBA
Other Sensitive Land
Uses1 55 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA 35 dBA
Commercial Uses 65 dBA 60 dBA - -
Industrial,
Manufacturing, or
Agricultural
75 dBA
70 dBA - -
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E Sensitive Land Uses. Those specific land uses which have associated human activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise. Sensitive land uses include single family residential, multiple family residential, churches, hospitals and similar health care institutions, convalescent homes, libraries and school classroom areas.

Construction Noise Standards. The City has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project. According to Section 17.84.040(D)(2), Construction noise, construction noise is prohibited:
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays. Construction noise is defined as noise, which is disturbing, excessive or offensive and constitutes a nuisance involving discomfort or annoyance to persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area, which is generated by the use of any tools, machinery or equipment used in connection with construction operations.

Federal Transit Administration
The City does not have daytime construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the specified hours in Section

11.80.030(D)(7) to determine potential noise impacts; therefore, construction noise was assessed using criteria from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual). Table N-4 presents the FTA’s detailed assessment daytime construction noise criteria.

Table N-4: Federal Transit Administration Daytime Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA)
Residential 80
Commercial 85
Industrial 90
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) Environmental:

City of Corona 66 Environmental Checklist

FTA Vibration Standards
Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance. The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table N-5 provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.

Table N-5: Vibration Annoyance Criteria
Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-power optical microscopes (up to 20×).

Residential Night
and Operating
Rooms
72 Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) Table N-6 lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA Manual. FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.

Table N-6: Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.50
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) a. Exceed noise level standards
Less than Significant Impact. As described above, City of Corona Municipal Code Section 17.84.040 prohibits construction noise between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and City observed federal holidays. The Project would comply with the City’s construction hours regulations, as required by standard City Conditions of Approval. Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 18 months.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term traffic noise impact assessment.

In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds was utilized, which states that a significant construction noise Environmental:

City of Corona 67 Environmental Checklist

impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 80 dBA during the daytime at any of the nearby homes. Table N-7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. As shown, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 55 dBA to 95 dBA when measured at 50 feet.

Table N-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Description
Acoustical Usage
Factor (%)1
Maximum Noise
Level (Lmax) at
50 Feet2
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Environmental:

City of Corona 68 Environmental Checklist

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power. 2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the Central Artery/ Tunnel program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” Project.

FHWA = Federal Hiighwway Administration
Lmax= maximum instantaneous sound level
Table N-8 shows the nearest receptors to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite noise levels expected during construction. These noise level projections do not consider intervening topography or barriers. As discussed above, the City’s Municipal Code recognizes construction noise as common within an urban environment. Because such noise is part of the urban environment, the Municipal Code specifies that construction activities may only occur during specified hours. While construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest receptor consisting of commercial uses to the east would reach an average noise level of 78 dBA Leq during daytime hours while noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site sensitive uses (museum and residences to the west) would reach 76 dBA Leq and 74 dBA Leq. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously, which is unlikely, and therefore, are assumed to be conservative in nature. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, construction noise would be temporary and intermittent and would stop following completion of the Project. In addition, the Project would comply with the City’s allowed hours of construction pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.84.040. Therefore, Project construction would result in a less than significant impact.

Table N-8: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors Receptor
(Location)
Composite Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
at 50 feet1
Distance (feet) Composite Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Commercial Uses (East)
88 145 78
Corona Heritage Park
and Museum (West) 200 76
Residences (West) 250 74
Residences (North) and
Park (South) 520 67
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E Operation
The Project proposes the construction of a single building with 107 residential units as well as the incorporation of recreational amenities, landscaping, and drive aisles. Noise generated by the Project would primarily occur from traffic and rooftop HVAC units on the proposed building.

Offsite Traffic Noise. In order to assess the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed Project, anticipated traffic that would result from Project operation was used to determine future noise levels on surrounding land uses as a result of the Project. Based on the Trip Generation Screening Analysis prepared for the Project by EPD Solutions Inc., it is anticipated that a net addition of 264 average daily trips (ADT) would be generated by the proposed Project. The results of Project noise modeling determined that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL would result from the Project along West Foothill Parkway adjacent to the Project site. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Onsite Operational Noise. Long term off-site stationary noise impacts from the Project would include air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Table N-9 shows the noise levels from HVAC equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive location.

Table N-9: HVAC Noise Levels
Off-Site Land
Use
(Direction)
Distance from
HVAC Units
(ft)
Reference
Noise Level
for 1 Unit at 5
ft
(dBA Leq)
Total
Reference
Noise for 13
Units at 5 ft
(dBA Leq) 1
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Environmental:

City of Corona 69 Environmental Checklist

Corona
Heritage
Park &
Museum
(West)
115 66.6 77.7 27 46
Residences
(West) 155 66.6 77.7 30 43
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E 1 Includes a minimum reduction of 5 dBA provided by rooftop parapet walls. dBA = A Weighted decibel(s)
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Leq= equivalent continuous sound level
As shown in Table N-9, Project related noise level impacts would range from 43.0 dBA Leq to 46.0 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors. The closest HVAC equipment units’ (13 units) noise levels would be below the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to11:00 p.m.) and nighttime (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards of 55 dBA Leq and 50 dBA Leq. The other HVAC equipment units would be further away and would receive greater noise reduction due to additional rooftop parapet shielding and therefore would likely not contribute to the combined noise level (LSA 2023). Because Project noise levels would not generate a noise level that exceeds the City’s thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. b) Exposure to excessive noise levels/vibrations
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction vibration analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in VdB are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while calculating vibration levels in PPV is best for characterizing the potential for damage.

Table N-10: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E 1RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. 2Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site. μin/sec = microinches per second; ft = foot/feet; in/sec = inch/inches per second; LV = velocity in decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration velocity decibels = vibration velocity decibels Table N-11 shows the summary of vibration annoyance levels due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors. As shown in Table N-11, vibration levels are expected to approach 64 VdB at the closest commercial use to the east and 60 VdB at the sensitive uses located west of the Project site, which is below the 78 VdB threshold for annoyance for daytime residential uses, respectively.

Environmental:

City of Corona 70 Environmental Checklist

Table N-11: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 ft1
Distance (ft) 2 Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Commercial Uses (East)
87 145 64
Corona Heritage Park and
Museum (West)
200 60
Residences (West) 250 57
Residences (North) 520 47
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E 1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses.

VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Table N-12 shows the summary of potential construction damage due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors.

Table N-12: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1
Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (PPV)
Commercial Uses
(East)

0.089
40 0.044
Corona Heritage Park
and Museum (West) 40 0.044
Residences (West) 80 0.016
Residences (North) 200 0.004
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix E 1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures.

PPV = peak particle velocity
The closest structure to the Project site is the commercial uses immediately to the east of the site, approximately 40 feet from the limits of construction activity. As shown in Table N-12, it is expected that vibrations levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment that would be as close as 40 feet from the property line would generate groundborne vibration levels of up to 0.044 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structure to the Project site. As such, this vibration level would not exceed the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. In addition, vibration levels at all other buildings located further from the Project site would be lower. Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed above, construction activities are regulated by the City’s Municipal Code, which states that temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities are not allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. With the implementation of the above practices, impacts related to construction vibration and noise would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration or noise. Operations of the Project would include passenger cars and trucks. According to the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be unlikely for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation (LSA 2023). Additionally, using the reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 ft from the roadways that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below a conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV. As mentioned above, an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL would result from the Project along West Foothill Parkway from traffic noise, which is a level not perceptible to the human ear. Thus, noise as a result of project related traffic would not result in an impact from excessive noise. Outdoor recreation areas, including courtyard recreation and dining areas, would also be below the City’s exterior noise level standard. Noise would be further reduced due to distance attenuation as the proposed pickleball court Environmental:

City of Corona 71 Environmental Checklist

is over 400 feet east of the nearest residential uses, which are across the street on the west side of Foothill Parkway.

Given the intermittent daytime recreational activity, the reduction due to the distance to nearest residential use, and the ambient noise generated by traffic along Foothill Parkway, it would be highly unlikely for pickleball noise to exceed exterior noise standards and impact surrounding land uses (JT Stephens (LSA), personal communication, January 3, 2024).

Likewise, typical parking lot activities would also not result in substantial noise impacts and would be similar to those of the existing commercial center. Any unreasonable noise generated would be a nuisance issue that would be handled on a case-by-case basis, which is not a typical operational impact of a senior housing project.

Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to excess noise and groundborne vibration. c) Permanent increase in ambient noise levels
Less than Significant Impact. As described above, there are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term traffic noise impact assessment.

The Project proposes the construction of a single building with 107 residential units as well as the incorporation of recreational amenities, landscaping, and drive aisles. Long-term noise generated by the Project would primarily occur from traffic and rooftop HVAC units on the proposed building and as described above under threshold a of this Section, both would result in ambient noise levels below City thresholds and thus would have a less than significant impact on long-term ambient noise levels.
d) Temporary increase in ambient noise levels
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, there are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment and its transport, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. As described above under threshold a of this Section, construction activities would result in ambient noise levels below FTA construction noise criteria thresholds. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, construction noise would be temporary and intermittent and would stop following completion of the Project. In addition, the Project would comply with the City’s allowed hours of construction pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.84.040. As such, Project construction would result in a less than significant impact to short-term ambient noise levels. e) Would the Project conflict with airport land use plan noise contours? No Impact. The Project site is not within two miles of an airport. The closest airport is the Corona Municipal Airport, which is approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not located within any land use compatibility zone for the nearest airport, nor is it within an airport safety zone or noise contours. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise levels conflicting with airport land use plan contours and no impact would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Environmental:

City of Corona 72 Environmental Checklist

City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, May 22023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix E).

11. PUBLIC SERVICES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Fire protection
b. Police protection
c. Schools
d. Parks & recreation facilities
e. Other public facilities or services
Discussion:
a. Fire Protection
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Corona is served by the Corona Fire Department (CFD). CFD operates seven fire stations throughout the City of Corona in addition to the CFD Headquarters. The Fire Department staff consists of 244 firefighters and 107 sworn fire personnel. The Project site is located within Fire Response Zone 6 which is serviced by Fire Station #6 located at 410 W. Upper Street, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site.

The proposed Project would include development of a of a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance on a 5.15-acre site. Implementation of the Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.12.020, as part of the permitting process the Project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building Division to ensure that the Project plans meet the fire protection requirements.

As mentioned previously, the California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Corona has a residential population of 157,005 and 50,604 housing units as of January 2023. In addition, it is estimated that the City has an average of 3.19 persons per household. Based on the Project’s floor plan, the assisted living facility would only be able to accommodate a maximum of 121 residents since each unit is intended for one person except for the two-bedroom units and shared memory care studios. . The slight increase in population proposed by the Project would result in additional demand for fire services from the Corona Fire Department. The Corona Fire Department would review the development plans for the Project to ensure the development adheres to the City’s requirements. Corona Fire Station #6 is within 0.75 miles of the Project site, providing close access and service. The City’s General Plan EIR determined future facilities and infrastructure could be required to accommodate General Plan build-out. However, as discussed previously under Section 2, Population and Housing, Project buildout would generate a small number of residents and would likely attract existing residents from the City of Corona . Moreover, future residents would be housed in a single assisted living/memory care structure, as opposed to single family homes or other housing types that would be more spread out. The Project’s buildings would also be constructed consistent with applicable fire codes. Finally, the Project applicant would be required to pay standard City development impact fees (Municipal Code Section 16.23.040), which include a fee for fire service impacts.

Impact fees mitigate the overburdening of existing facilities, equipment, and levels of service. Provision of a new or physically altered fire station would not be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. b. Police Protection
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 73 Environmental Checklist

Less than Significant Impact. The City of Corona Police Department is located at 730 Public Safety Way, which is 3.7 miles from the Project site. The Police Department staff consists of 250 sworn officers and support personnel. Based on the January 2023 California DOF population data for the City of 157,005, the City has approximately 1.59 officers per 1,000 residents.

Development of the proposed 107 residential units would result in an incremental increase in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. As described previously, the residential population of the Project site at full occupancy would be approximately 121 residents and based on the Police Department’s staffing of 1.59 officers per thousand population, the proposed Project would require 0.2 percent of an additional officer. Furthermore, as discussed above, the residential population associated with the Project would be contained within the Project itself, as opposed to spread over more buildings. Also, the Project would be staffed 24 hours per day and monitored, which supports security at the site.

Since the need by the Project is less than one full-time officer, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur. As such, impacts related to police services would be less than significant. c. Schools
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would develop the Project site with a assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance, intended to house senior residents. As such, the development of the Project would not generate students. Further, employees needed to operate the Project are anticipated to come from within the Project region and substantial in-migration of employees that could generate new students is not anticipated to occur.

Thus, the Project would not generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Parks and Recreation Facilities
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would develop a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance. Pursuant to the MGSP, which requires consistency with Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.24.220, Outdoor Living Space, senior citizen’s and/or handicapped persons’ dwelling unit lots and senior citizen congregate housing lots shall contain a minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor living space per dwelling unit. The Project would consist of approximately 17,315SF of common recreational space, resulting in an average of 161 SF per unit. Recreational amenities proposed include a pool, pool house, two patios and two courtyards in the center of the Project site. Additional amenities include outdoor dining areas, a pet park with a shade structure, a citrus orchard with a shade structure, a garden bed area, a courtyard with a putting green, and other passive open space areas with paths and benches.

As such, the Project would provide adequate common open space per the proposed development standards included in the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on acceptable ratios of park space. e. Other Public Facilities and Services
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop the Project site with a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance within an area that already contains surrounding residential land uses. The additional residences would result in an incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the Project area is already served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in population, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-1: School Fees. To the extent applicable, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to public services are required.

City of Corona 74 Environmental Checklist

City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686

12. UTILITIES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
b. Involve construction/expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities
c. Involve construction/expansion of storm drains
d. Sufficient water supplies/compliance with Urban Water Management Plan.
e. Adequate wastewater treatment capacity
f. Adequate landfill capacity
g. Comply with solid waste regulations
Discussion:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
Stormwater Drainage
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would install a 4-inch sewer line in the center of the site that would connect to the existing sewer sub within an existing public utility easement.

The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 5, Air Quality and 16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 10, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Involve construction/expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities Water Infrastructure
The proposed Project is within an urbanized, developed area of Corona. The Project would install a 4-inch water line that would connect to an onsite domestic water backflow preventor to the east which would then connect to the existing 4-inch water line located within a public utility easement. Water services would be provided by the City of Corona’s Utilities Department (CUD), formerly known as the Department of Water and Power (DWP). The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed units and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code and the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.70.070, Landscaping, and Chapter 13.14, □ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
□ □ [8] □
Environmental:

City of Corona 75 Environmental Checklist

Water and Sewer Regulations and would be reviewed for compliance by the City during Project plan check.

The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed units is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5, Air Quality and 16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 10, Noise. In addition, Project implementation would not require off-site improvements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Involve construction/expansion of storm drains
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would install storm drain catch basins throughout the Project site to capture and infiltrate stormwater runoff. As discussed previously, the Project would increase runoff volumes above existing conditions. However, the stormwater capture and biofiltration features to be installed as part of the Project are sized to handle the increased on-site volumes to ensure no increase in runoff beyond the site. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite storm water infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project, and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND.

As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new stormwater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Sufficient water supplies/compliance with Urban Water Management Plan Less than Significant Impact. According to the City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), CUD receives water supplies from four sources: treated surface water, untreated surface water, and desalinated brackish groundwater. Further, through a combination of these resources, the UWMP indicates that the City has the ability to meet current and projected water demands through 2045 during normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year periods (UWMP 2020). The Project would include a GPA to change the existing land use designation from GC to HDR, a SPA to add Senior Citizen Residential to the Mountain Gate Specific Plan and change the land use from C to SCR, and a CFA to the South Corona Community Facilities Plan to change the land use from C to SCR.

The UWMP applied SCAG future population projections to estimate overall water demand from 2020 to 2025 throughout the City for all land use types (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). According to the UWMP, water use for Commercial/ Institutional uses in the City of Corona was 2,944 AF in 2020 and was projected to increase approximately 134 AF resulting in a projected amount of 3,078 AF in 2025. Water use for Residential Multi Family was 2,674 AF in 2020 and was projected to decrease by approximately 151 AF resulting in a projected amount of 2,523 AF in 2025 (UWMP 2020). The overall projected decrease in water usage for residential land uses is a result of anticipated future water efficiency factors, such as reduced water loss, increased water reuse, and other water infrastructure and utility improvements. Therefore, future residential land uses are considered to have a lower water demand than commercial land uses. As such, the UWMP assumptions, which considers a larger percentage of commercial land use, assume greater water demand than proposed under the Project. The Project would therefore result in less water demand than considered within the UWMP and the proposed GPA and SPA would not conflict with UWMP determinations.

The Project would also limit water use by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements and would comply with City permits and fees as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project, and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Adequate wastewater treatment capacity
Less than Significant Impact. The Corona Utilities Department (CUD) services the Project area. CUD has three water reclamation facilities (WRF 1, 2 and 3 also known as WWTP 1, 2, and 3), and a network of gravity sewer pipes of approximately 368 miles with varying sizes. The CUD also has capacity in the Western Riverside County Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) Plant consisting of approximately 2.62 million gallons per day (MGD). The CUD water reclamation facilities have an average treatment capacity of 15.5 MGD (17,362 AF) resulting in a total wastewater capacity of 18.12 MGD (20,297 AF) for the City of Corona (GP EIR, 2019). According to the UWMP, Wastewater Treatment Plant 3 (WWTP3), which has a treatment capacity of 1.0 MGD (1,120 AFY), services the southeastern portion of the City. Currently, the plant treats approximately 0.3 MGD (336 AFY) (UWMP 2020).

Assuming a wastewater generation rates of 60 gallons per person per day, the Project would generate approximately 7,260 gallons per day (gpd) or 8.13 AFY (Corona Reclaimed Water Master Plan 2018).

Under existing conditions, the WWTP-3 has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 784 AFY (255,500,000 gpd).

As such, implementation of the Project would utilize approximately 0.01 percent of the WWTP-3 daily excess treatment capacity. Thus, the wastewater treatment plant has ample capacity, and the Project would not create the need for any Environmental:

City of Corona 76 Environmental Checklist

new or expanded wastewater facility (such as conveyance lines, treatment facilities, or lift stations) to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant. f. Adequate landfill capacity
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Corona contracts with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) for trash and recycling services. Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill in the City of Corona, located approximately 10.7 roadway miles from the site. El Sobrante Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to accept 16,054 tons per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through January 2051. In December 2022, the average tonnage received was 9,291.25 tons per day (Calrecycle 2023).

Construction
The proposed Project does not involve demolition of existing structures; however, Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal from construction packaging and discarded materials. Utilizing a construction waste factor of 3.89 pounds per square foot (EPA 1998), construction of the Project would generate approximately 213.1 tons of waste during construction from packaging and discarded materials. However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. Therefore, construction activities, which would generate the most solid waste would generate approximately 74.56 tons of solid waste. As described in the Air Quality Analysis, included in Appendix A to this IS/MND, construction is expected to take 545 days. As such this would equate to approximately 0.14 tons of solid waste per day.

As described above, El Sobrante Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 6,762.75 tons per day. Therefore, the facility would be able to accommodate the addition of 0.14 tons of waste per day during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, the El Sobrante Landfill would be able to accommodate solid waste from construction of the proposed Project.

Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for congregate care (assisted living) is 0.91 tons per 100 units per year. The Project proposes construction of 1 building consisting of 107 residential units. Thus, operation of the Project would generate approximately 0.97 tons of solid waste per year; or .02 tons per week. However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 0.15 tons per week or 300 pounds per week. As the El Sobrante Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 6,762.75 tons per day, the solid waste generated by the Project would be within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
g. Comply with solid waste regulations
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.

In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Environmental:

City of Corona 77 Environmental Checklist

CalRecycle, El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217), 2023. Accessed:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2402 City of Corona 2018 Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2018. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18442/637248910333670000 City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2020. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/department-of-water-and-power/businesses/planning-forour-future City of Corona General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2019. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686

13. AESTHETICS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Scenic vista or highways
b. Degrade visual character of site & surroundings
c. Light or glare
c. Scenic resources (forest land, historic buildings within state scenic highway)
Discussion:
a. Scenic vista or highway
Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view of visual setting.

According to the City’s General Plan, areas of high visual sensitivity within/adjacent to the City include the Prado Basin views from Sierra del Oro—the basin and canyon areas on the west; views south to the Santa Ana Mountains from the I15/SR-91 freeway interchange; southern view of the foothills from major streets south of Ontario Avenue; and views of San Gabriel Mountains from higher elevations south of Ontario Avenue (General Plan, 2020). Additionally, according to Figure CD-1 of the Corona General Plan, Foothill Parkway, which is directly north of the Project, is a City-designated scenic corridor due to its views of the Cleveland National Forest and other foothill areas along the periphery of Corona.

The Project would develop the site and construct a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance, with a maximum height of 35 feet and 8 inches. The Project site is within a developed area with commercial structures located to the east, a museum to the west, and single-family residential to the north. The Project would be similar in height to commercial structures located to the east of the site and mountain views from the public right of way are distant. Therefore, the Project would not encroach into views along the roadway corridor any more than existing structures adjacent to the site. Respectively, the Project would be set back approximately 25 feet from the right of way along Foothill Parkway and the proposed building would be set back over 100 feet. The Project would also be subject to development and architectural design standards in the Mountain Gate Specific Plan. Thus, development of the Project site with two-story residential buildings would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Project site is not near to, nor visible from, any state scenic highways. The closest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route 91 (SR-91), approximately 10.8 miles from the Project site. The closest □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
Environmental:

City of Corona 78 Environmental Checklist

Eligible State Scenic Highway is State Route 15 (SR-15), located approximately 2.3 miles west of the Project site.

Therefore, due to the distance of the Project site from either a designated or eligible State or County scenic highway, the proposed Project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway. b. Degrade visual character of the site or surroundings Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Corona, along a 4-lane arterial roadway and surrounded by residential, park, and commercial land uses. The Project would develop the site with a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units, with 24-hour care assistance, communal amenities, and recreational areas, as shown in Figure 7, Conceptual Site Plan.

As shown in Figure 5, Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations, the existing General Plan land use designation of the site is GC. As shown in Figure 6, Existing and Proposed Zoning Map, the site is within both the Mountain Gate Specific Plan and the South Corona Community Facilities Plan. The Project site is currently designated as Commercial (C) in the MGSP and the SCCFP. Per the MGSP, the purpose of the C designation is intended to provide for development of neighborhood commercial development. Typical uses would likely include a supermarket, convenience store, drugstore, and various small retail and personal services establishments. Since Project implementation would result in the redevelopment of the site with residential uses that would be inconsistent with the underlying Specific Plan designation, the Project requires and includes an SPA and CFPA that would amend the existing designation to “Senior Citizen Residential” and would propose development standards that the Project would be subject to. As detailed, in Table AES1 below, the Project would be consistent with the proposed development standards for the Senior Citizen Residential zone in the MGSP. Also, the Project would be developed in an urbanized areas, adjacent to commercial uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table AES-1: Consistency with Proposed Mountain Gate Specific Plan Development Standards Development Feature Proposed SCR
Development Standards
Proposed Project Consistency
Maximum Lot Coverage 60 percent Consistent. The Project would result in a 24.64 percent lot coverage.

Maximum Dwelling Unit
Density (per gross acre)

40.5 du/ac per the SCCFP Consistent. The proposed Project would include 107 units at a density of

20.8 dwelling units per acre.

Minimum Dwelling Unit Area 400 SF for studio units and
450 SF for all others
Consistent. The Project would provide
a minimum of 408 SF for studio units
and a minimum of 501 SF for 1 & 2 BR
units.

Building Height 40 feet Consistent. The proposed residential building would be a maximum of 35 feet
and 8 inches in height from the finished
grade to the top of the highest
architecture.

Front Yard As stated in Section

17.24.100, each lot or
building site shall have a
front yard along the street of
not less than 25 feet, except
that parking lots may be
permitted with a 5-foot
setback from the right-ofway along Mountain Gate
Drive.

Consistent. The Project includes a 25-
foot setback along Foothill Parkway and
a 25-foot building and 5 foot parking lot
setback along Mountain Gate Drive.

Side Yard As stated in Section

17.24.100, each interior lot
or building site shall have
side yards along common
property lines of:
(c) Not less than ten feet
for three story buildings.

However, the side yard
landscape may be reduced
subject to Planning and
Development Director
Consistent. The Project includes a 7-
foot and 6-inch side setback to the east
and to the west of the Project.

Environmental:

City of Corona 79 Environmental Checklist

Development Feature Proposed SCR
Development Standards
Proposed Project Consistency
approval through the Precise
Plan Review process.

Rear Yard As stated in Section

17.24.100, each lot shall
have a rear yard of not less
than ten feet.

Consistent. The Project abuts
Mountain Gate Drive and includes a 25-
foot building setback.

Parking As stated in Section

17.76.030, the parking
requirements for memory
care are: 1 space per
employee; and for assisted
living are 1.0 covered
spaces per unit or bed,
whichever is greater, plus 1
uncovered guest space per
4 units or beds.

Consistent. The Project includes 109
total parking spaces inclusive of 101
parking spaces based on the 75
assisted living units (1 parking space
per 101 beds); and 6 parking spaces
based on parking space per employees
(1 parking space per 6 employees) as
illustrated on Figure 7, Site Plan.

Additionally, shade trees will be
reviewed during the Precise Plan
Review process to ensure adequate
shading and in conformance with the
Landscape Design Guidelines for
Commercial & Industrial Developments
c. Light or glare
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a developed area. The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not include any existing lighting sources. Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site include streetlights, lights from commercial uses to the east, and lighting from vehicle headlights along West Foothill Parkway.

Construction
Although construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours, construction activities could extend into the evening hours. However, construction lighting would be temporary and would only occur during the allowed hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays (Monday through Saturday) and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. per Section 17.84.040 of the City’s Development Code. Therefore, construction of the Project would not create a new source of substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project would implement new permanent lighting fixtures on the site. Proposed fixtures include streetlights, building entry light fixtures, and light posts in common areas. The Project would include nighttime ambient lighting for security purposes around the assisted senior living building, onsite drives, and in the open space/recreation/amenity area. Thus, the Project would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, the site is located within a developed area that includes various sources of nighttime lighting, including the street lighting along West Foothill Parkway. All outdoor lighting would be hooded or appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses and would comply with Municipal Code Section 17.84.070 provides that all exterior lighting shall be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses and open space. Because the Project area is within an already developed area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and because the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations that would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process, any increase in lighting that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant. d. Scenic resources (forest land, historic buildings within state scenic highway) No Impact. The Project site is not near scenic resources such as forest land nor is it visible from, or located on any state scenic highways. The closest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route 91 (SR-91), approximately 10.8 miles from the Project site. The closest Eligible State Scenic Highway is State Route 15 (SR-15), located approximately 2.3 miles west of the Project site. Additionally, there is a Heritage Park Museum that exists approximately 180 feet to the west of the Project site is considered a local landmark in the City of Corona’s Register of Historic Resources. However, it is not located within a state scenic highway. As such, implementation of the Project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway such as forest land and historic buildings.

Environmental:

City of Corona 80 Environmental Checklist

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AES-1: Lighting & Glare. The Project is required to comply with Corona Municipal Code Section 17.84.070 which requires all areas of exterior lighting to be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses and open space so that light and glare is confined within the boundaries of the Project site.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983] City of Corona General Plan 2020-2040, June 2020. Accessed: https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departmentsdivisions/planning-division/general-plan-update City of Corona Mountain Gate Specific Plan, June 1989. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686

14. CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Historical resource
b. Archaeological resource
c. Paleontological resource or unique geologic feature
d. Disturb human remains
Discussion:

The following section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment completed by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA) in April 2023 (Appendix C) and the Paleontological Assessment completed by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA) in April 2023 (Appendix F).
a. Historical resource
Less than Significant Impact. The California Register of Historical Resources defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates for the proposed Project and is included as Appendix C. As part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, a records search for the Project site and surrounding area was conducted through the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside.

The records search indicated that 12 previous studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the Project site, one of which included the subject property. Further, the records search identified three historic resources within a half mile of the □ □ ~ □
□ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 81 Environmental Checklist

Project site, however, no resources have been recorded within the boundaries of the Project site.

There is a Heritage Park Museum that exists approximately 180 feet to the west of the Project site is considered a local landmark in the City of Corona’s Register of Historic Resources. However, construction of the proposed Project would not alter or impact the existing structure. As such, implementation of the Project would not destroy a historic site or cause an adverse impact to a historical resource, and impacts related to historic sites would not occur.

In addition to the record search, the Cultural Resources Assessment also included a field survey which was conducted on November 4, 2022. The field survey noted a modern storm drain system which was identified by in-ground concrete culverts located throughout the property, which was determined to have no historical significance as it related to CEQA.

As such, the survey of the site did not identify any historic resources and the Project would not result in impacts to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5.
b. Archaeological resource
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project site is vacant, containing vegetation primarily comprised of weeds and ornamental shrubs and trees. Further, the Project area has been disturbed by previous grading associated with the development of a commercial shopping center to the east of the property (BFSA 2022). According to the record search completed for the Project, results indicated there is no presence of archaeological resources within the Project site. Based upon historic USGS data and the aerial photographs, no structures have ever been located within the property.

As such, the potential to encounter archaeological resources was determined to be low. However, after receiving a comment letter from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, during the AB 52 Tribal Consultation period, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 have been incorporated into this MND which require initial ground-disturbing archaeological monitoring, and cultural sensitivity training for construction personnel in the case that inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources be unearthed during project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would thus reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level. c. Paleontological resource or unique geologic feature
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains of ancient plants and animals that can provide scientifically significant information about the history of life on Earth. Paleontological “sensitivity” is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history of the rock unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just a specific site.

A Paleontological Assessment was prepared for the Project by Brian F. Smith Associates (BFSA 2023b). The geologic units underlying the Project site are mapped as Holocene and upper Pleistocene-aged gravelly young alluvial fan deposits.

These deposits are composed of unconsolidated, granule- to cobble-sized gravel, and are restricted to a single alluvial fan that is bisected by younger fans emanating from the Main Street and Eagle Canyons. Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant paleontological resources and is thus typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. However, Pleistocene alluvial and alluvial fan deposits are considered to have a high paleontological resource sensitivity. The Paleontological Resources Assessment (included as Appendix F) prepared for the Project included a locality and records search and site survey. The records search was completed using records from prior BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA) projects, the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM), and the Western Science Center (WSC). The records search indicated that no fossil localities were identified within the Project boundaries or near the Project site. The closest-known fossil localities are located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project, consisting of a large collection of over 1000 fossil leaves from about 16 species of plants and trees. Additionally, BFSA surveyed all potentially sensitive areas where paleontological resources might be located and did not identify any, nor find evidence of paleontological resources on the property. Based on the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s guidelines, BFSA has determined that the Project site has a low to undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources (BFSA 2023b).

However, because the Project has an undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources and because the Project site is designated as having “high” paleontological sensitivity according to the City of Corona General Plan EIR paleontological sensitivity map, the Project will be required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) for approval by the City of Corona prior to approval of grading plans for the Project as described in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which requires that the Project be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis would also be implemented. The Paleontological Resources Assessment recommends that monitoring begin at a depth of five feet, consistent with the depth that young alluvial fan deposits are anticipated. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 will also provide procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that potential paleontological resources are discovered during grading or excavation activities. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires that work shall cease within 50 feet of a find until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find in accordance with federal and state regulations and has arranged the find to be delivered to a depository—specifically, the Western Environmental:

City of Corona 82 Environmental Checklist

Science Center in the City of Hemet. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would thus reduce potential impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources to a less than significant level. d. Disturb human remains
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity, and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site.

Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. Thus Mitigation Measure CUL-4 (MM CUL-4) has been included which states that if human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, § 7050.5, “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to § 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Additionally, pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code § 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.

Therefore, MM CUL-4, requiring compliance with California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, has been included to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to disturbance of human remains to a less than significant level.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain and enter a monitoring and mitigation service contract with a qualified Archaeologist (“Archaeological Monitor”) for mitigation monitoring services and implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP). At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, a copy of the agreement between the Project Applicant shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department:
• A CRMP shall be prepared to guide the procedures and protocols of an archaeological mitigation monitoring program that shall be implemented during initial onsite and offsite ground disturbing activities. The CRMP shall include, but not be limited to, the Project grading and development schedule; approved Project cultural resources mitigation measures and conditions of approval; monitoring procedures; protocols for the identification, assessment, collection, and analysis of any resource(s) observed during grading; curation guidelines; and coordination with project personnel, City staff, and any participating Native American tribe(s). The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified of any discoveries. The final CRMP shall be submitted to the City Project planner and/or inspector, the appropriate Project supervisor/engineer/etc., and monitoring Native American tribe(s), if any.
• The Archaeological Monitor shall be invited to a preconstruction meeting with construction personnel and City and tribal representatives. The attending archaeologist shall review the provisions of the CRMP and answer any applicable questions.
• Full-time monitoring shall occur throughout the entire Project area, including all off-site improvement areas, during initial ground-disturbing activities. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the Archaeological Monitor determines that the overall sensitivity of the Project area is low as a result of mitigation monitoring and shall have the authority to modify and reduce the monitoring program to either periodic spot-checks or complete suspension of the monitoring program. Should the monitor(s) determine that there are no cultural resources within the Project site or off-site improvement areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease.

City of Corona 83 Environmental Checklist

Luiseño Indians for purposes of inviting the Tribe to participate in the CRMP implementation and to observe any continuing ground-disturbing construction activities. Further, all ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted and the applicant and a meeting shall be convened between the developer, the consulting archaeologist, the lead agency and a Rincon tribal representative to discuss the significance of the find. Further ground disturbance shall not resume in the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished.

MM CUL-3 Paleontological Monitor. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City of a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). The PRMMP shall include the provision of a trained paleontological monitor during onsite soil disturbance activities beginning at a depth of five feet. The PRMMP shall include the provision of a trained paleontological monitor during onsite soil disturbance activities. The monitoring for paleontological resources shall be conducted on a full-time basis during the rough grading phases of the Project site within native soils that have the potential to harbor paleontological resources. The paleontological monitor shall be equipped to rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation.

During monitoring, samples of soil shall be collected and processed to recover micro-vertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains. If paleontological resources are unearthed or discovered during grading activities, the following recovery processes shall apply:
• Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted with additional field staff and in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. • All fossils collected during the project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the museum repository along with the specimens. • A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities and the significance of the fossils shall be prepared.
• All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository (such as the Western Science Center for Archaeology & Paleontology, the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, or the San Bernardino County Museum) for permanent curation and storage.

MM CUL-4 Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving activities, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community and Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC).According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

Phase I Cultural Resources Study, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, April 2023 (BFSA 2023a) (Appendix C).

Environmental:

City of Corona 84 Environmental Checklist

15. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Williamson Act contract
b. Conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use
Discussion:
a. Williamson Act contract
No Impact. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments.

According to the General Plan EIR, Corona does not include any land that is currently under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in impacts related to a Williamson Act contract would not occur. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact. b. Conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use
No Impact. The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland mapping identifies the Project site and surrounding areas as Urban and Built-Up land (CDC 2023). No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California Important Farmland Finder. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
City of Corona General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2019. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update

16. GREENHOUSE GAS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gases
b. Conflict with a plan, policy or regulation
Discussion:
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 85 Environmental Checklist

The following section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum prepared in November 2023 by LSA and included as Appendix A. Greenhouse Gas impacts including construction and operational GHGs are discussed in detail under subsection Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of the technical memorandum. a. Generate greenhouse gases
Less than Significant Impact.

Greenhouse Gas Thresholds
The analysis methodologies from SCAQMD are used in evaluating potential impacts related to GHG from implementation of the proposed Project. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, the agency does have draft thresholds that provide a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which include:
• Tier 1: determine whether or not the Project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA; • Tier 2: determine whether the Project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, which would mean that it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions; • Tier 3: determine if the Project would be below screening thresholds; if a Project’s GHG emissions are under numerical screening thresholds, then the Project is less than significant; SCAQMD methodology for determining GHG emissions from a Project’s construction is to average those emissions over a 30-year span and then to add them to the Project’s operational emissions to determine if the Project would exceed the screening values listed; to determine whether the Project is significant, the City of Corona uses the conservative SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; and • Tier 4: determine whether emissions exceed the numerical screening threshold, and if so a more detailed review of the Project’s GHG emissions is warranted; SCAQMD proposed a per-capita efficiency approach for projects that exceed the bright-line threshold—in 2020 SCAQMD set an efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e per year per service population for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e per year per service population for plan-level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as General Plans).

Construction
The Project construction activities would be temporary but could contribute to greenhouse gas impacts. Construction activities would result in the emission of GHGs from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips. The total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for construction of the proposed residential units are shown in Table GHG-1. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions during construction would equal approximately 740 MTCO2e, which is equal to approximately 24.7 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years. Per SCAQMD methodology the 30-year amortized construction emissions are added to annual operational emissions and compared to the threshold.

Table GHG-1: Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year
GHG Emissions, CO2e
(metric tons per year)
2024 171
2025 463
2026 106
Total Project
Emissions
740
Total Emissions
Amortized Over 30
Years

24.7 Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Technical Memo, 2022 Operational
Implementation of the proposed 107 residential units would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from motor vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the proposed residences would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed residential Project are shown in Table GHG-2. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the Project’s amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table GHG-1 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the Project’s total annual GHG emissions.

Environmental:

City of Corona 86 Environmental Checklist

As shown in Table GHG-2, the proposed Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 666 MTCO2e per year. This would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Table GHG-2. Total GHG Emissions
Emission Type
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project Operational Emissions
Mobile 305
Area 1.9
Energy 222
Water 13.8
Waste 98.6
Total Project Operational
Emissions 641.3
Total Amoritized Construction
Emissions 24.7
Total Emissions 666
SCAQMD Tier 3 Significance
Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Technical Memo, 2022 b. Conflict with a plan, policy or regulation
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the previous response, the Project would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would comply with regulations imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car standards, and capand-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation activities are ongoing. The proposed building would not conflict with fuel and car standards or cap-and-trade. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project would comply with LCFS. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to the goals and policies of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. The City’s CAP Update provides Screening Tables based on land use type to determine whether a Project is consistent with GHG reduction goals. The proposed Project was evaluated for consistency with the City’s CAP Update goals and was found to be consistent with several goals including:
• 2.1. Exceed Energy Efficiency Standards
• 5.1. Water Efficiency though Enhanced Implementation of Senate Bill X7-7 • 5.2. Exceed Water Efficiency Standards
• 6.1. Tree Planting for Shading and Energy Saving
Environmental:

City of Corona 87 Environmental Checklist

• 6.2. Light Reflecting Surfaces for Energy Saving
• 7.1. Alternative Transportation Options
• 8.1. Reduce Waste to Landfills
• 9.1. Clean Energy
Appendix J includes a detailed analysis of the Project’s CAP consistency. In addition, the proposed Project would have sufficient points under the CAP Screening Table for Residential Development and therefore would be consistent with the City’s CAP (Appendix J).

The proposed Project would consist of development of a residential building with 107 units. As described above, the proposed Project is anticipated to create approximately 666 MTCO2e per year, which is below the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GHG-1 Corona CAP Update Compliance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall complete a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in accordance with the City’s CAP Update and shall achieve the minimum number of points necessary to comply with the City of Corona Greenhouse Gas reductions goals.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, prepared by LSA, May 2023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix A).

17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. 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
b. 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 Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe
Discussion:

AB 52 and SB 18 Requirements
The Project is subject to tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18. Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a Project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” SB 18 requires cities and counties acting as Lead Agency to contact and consult with California Native American tribes before adopting or amending a General Plan. The intent of SB 18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and local governments at the earliest possible point in the planning process and to enable tribes to manage “cultural places.” Cultural places are defined as a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any □ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 88 Environmental Checklist

archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

In addition, as part of the Cultural Resources Study (BFSA 2023a) a Sacred Lands File search was requested from the NAHC. The NAHC responded on November 14, 2022, stating that there are no known sacred lands on the Project site or the nearby vicinity, and requested that 32 Native American individuals of 23 tribes be contacted for further information regarding the general area vicinity.

In compliance with the NAHC request, on July 20, 2023, letters were sent to all of the 23 Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project area, which are:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – 84A • La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
• Pechanga Band of Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
One response was received on September 27, 2023, in the form of a comment letter, from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians requesting more information and applicable documents related to the Project. Thereafter, on November 7, 2023, after review of the City provided documents and internal review of their documents, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians sent a second letter in which they provided suggested mitigation measures for the Project and requested that protocols be established to guide processes for inadvertent discoveries, which resulted in the addition of mitigation measure CUL1, CUL-2,and CUL-4. No other requests for consultation or recommendations under AB 52 or SB 18 regarding the proposed Project were received by the City.
a. 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) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As detailed previously in Section 14, Cultural Resources, the Project site Environmental:

City of Corona 89 Environmental Checklist

is vacant and does not contain resources eligible for listing on a register of historical resources. In addition, the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C) prepared for the Project included a records search for the Project site and surrounding area was conducted through the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside and did not identify any historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) on the Project site.

Furthermore, the Sacred Lands File search completed by the NAHC stated that there are no known sacred lands on the Project site or in its vicinity. However, as mentioned above, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 have been included listed in the Cultural Resources section in consideration of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians’ letter with suggested mitigation measures in the potential that an archaeological historical resource is unearthed. Thus, impacts to tribal historical resources would be less than significant with MM CUL-1 and CUL-2. b. 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 Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase I Cultural Resources Study (Appendix C) prepared for the Project included a search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton, and did not identify any cultural resources on the Project site. Furthermore, the Sacred Lands File search completed by the NAHC to determine if recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within a 1-mile radius of the Project site, yielded negative results. Given that there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Project site, there is a limited potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources.

However, in consideration of the letters received from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Mitigation Measures have been included in the Cultural Resources section (MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-4) that would reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant should any resources be discovered during the Project’s grounddisturbing construction activities.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Monitoring, as listed in Section 14, Cultural Resources MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery and Native American Notification, as listed in Section 14, Cultural Resources MM CUL-4 Discovery of Human Remains, as listed in Section 14, Cultural Resources Sources
Phase I Cultural Resources Study, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, April 2023 (BFSA 2023a) (Appendix C).

18. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Fish/ wildlife population or habitat or important historical sites b. Cumulatively considerable impacts
c. Substantial adverse effects on humans
d. Short-term vs. long-term goals
Discussion:
□ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 90 Environmental Checklist

a. Fish/wildlife population or habitat or important historical sites Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Section 7, Biological Resources, the Project site is currently undeveloped, undisturbed, and is surrounded by existing development. The Project is located in MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. Although Burrowing Owls were not identified on the Project site, a 30-day preconstruction survey shall be conducted prior to the commencement of Project activities (MM BIO-1). With implementation of MM BIO1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Additionally, the Project site contains ornamental shrubs and trees that could be used for nesting by common bird species that are protected by the federal MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3511, and 3515. These bird species are protected during the avian nesting and breeding season, which occurs between February to September.

The provisions of the MBTA prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Therefore, MM BIO-2 has been included to require a nesting bird survey, if construction commences during nesting season, which shall take place no more than 3 days prior to commencement of activities to confirm the absence of nesting birds. With implementation of MM BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Additionally, as described in Section 14, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any buildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. While, there is a Heritage Park Museum that exists approximately 180 feet to the west of the Project site that is considered a local landmark in the City of Corona’s Register of Historic Resources, construction of the proposed Project would not alter or impact the existing structure. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to an important historical site.

Project grading and construction activities have the potential to encroach into native soils that have not been previously disturbed and could contain paleontological resources. Further, the Project site is designated as having “high” paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, MM GEO-1 has been included to provide a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) addressing specifics of monitoring and mitigation based on the Project area and Project’s construction plan. MM GEO-2 has also been included to include a paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. In the event that potential paleontological resources are discovered during grading or excavation activities, MM GEO-6 would require that work cease within 50 feet of a find until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find in accordance with federal and state regulations. Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2 and GEO-6 would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation on the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Cumulatively considerable impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would develop the Project site with a building consisting of 107 residential units. The Project would provide land uses that are consistent with the adjacent residential and commercial uses. As presented in this document, potential Project-related impacts are either less than significant or would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Based on the analysis contained in this document, Projectrelated impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Given that the potential Project-related impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable when evaluated with the impacts of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Sections 1 through 21 of this document, mitigation would be required and incorporated as necessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Substantial adverse effects on humans
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would develop the Project site with a building consisting of 107 residential units. The Project would provide land uses that are consistent with the adjacent residential and commercial uses. Based on the Project description and the preceding responses in Sections 1 through 21 of this document, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, since all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project are expected to be mitigated to a less than significant level, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Environmental:

City of Corona 91 Environmental Checklist

d. Short term vs. long term goals
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project would develop a two-story, 109,551 SF assisted senior living facility, consisting of 107 units with 24-hour care assistance. The Project would operate as a senior assisted senior living facility intended to serve the existing local community. As described in Section 1, Land Use, the Project site has an existing Corona General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (GC) and a zoning of Commercial per the Mountain Gate Specific Plan. The General Commercial (GC) land use designation provides for a range of commercial uses that serve local neighborhoods, the community, and visitors. In addition, the Project site is designated as Commercial (C) within the South Corona Community Facilities Plan. The Project is inclusive of a GPA, SPA, and CFPA to change the site’s land use designation and allowable uses, which would be reviewed and approved by the City of Corona as part of the Project approval process. Further, the proposed development would be consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, specific plan, and community facilities plan as discussed in Section 1. As such, the Project would not conflict with the General Plan’s short or long term goals.

19. WILDFIRE:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
b. Due to slope, prevailing wind, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
d. 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
Discussion
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Very Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA) (CALFIRE 2023). The proposed Project would be located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Additionally, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the proposed Project would not obstruct or alter any transportation routes that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events.

The proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via a 28-foot-wide driveway along West Foothill Parkway and would connect to an internal access way that would ensure access for emergency vehicles within the interior of the site. Additionally, access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would be reviewed and approved by the Corona Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access. As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would not occur. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire No Impact. As described in the previous response, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity □ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Environmental:

City of Corona 92 Environmental Checklist

Zone. The Project site is in an urbanized area and the open space/park area located south of the Project lacks vegetation necessary for the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Further, the areas within the Project’s vicinity do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, no impact would occur. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
No Impact. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the Project does not include infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks. Although the Project includes new driveways within the Project site and other utility offsite improvements, the Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Project design and implementation of utility improvements would also be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable design standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities), that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d. 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. As established in Section 4, Hydrology and Water Quality, during Project construction, soil would be compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered due to grading, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. However, construction BMPs would be identified and implemented as part of the proposed Project. Implementation of construction BMPs would control and direct surface runoff to prevent flooding, and as such, Project construction would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope and downstream flooding and impacts would be less than significant.

During operation, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing onsite drainage patterns. Compliance with the proposed operational BMPs would ensure onsite storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project site so that onsite flooding would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As established in Section 3, Geology and Soils, the Project site is not identified as a landslide hazard zone and hazards from slippage or landslide are unlikely. Therefore, the risk of slope failure represents a limited level of concern on the Project site. Further, projects in the City of Corona are required to comply with the CBC. Given the Project’s location and with Project’s compliance with the CBC, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. Accessed:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
City of Corona General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2019. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update Environmental:

City of Corona 93 Environmental Checklist

20. ENERGY:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Discussion:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, paint, fencing, lighting and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Based on these uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit of-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Construction of the Project does not involve any unusual or increased need for energy. In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur is limited to an 18-month period, and the demand for construction-related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame.

Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment, which would be verified as part of the City’s construction permitting process, which is included as PPP E-1. In addition, compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. The energy modeling shows that Project construction equipment fuel usage over the 18-month construction period is estimated to use 17,870 gallons of diesel fuel, as shown in Table E-1.

Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption Activity Equipment Number Horsepower
Load
Factor
Days of
Constructio
n
Total
Horse
powerhours
Fuel
Rate
(gal/hphr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Site
Preparation
Rubber
Tired
Dozers
3 367 0.4 30 105,696 0.020612 2,179
Tractors/
Loaders/
Backhoes
4 84 0.37 30 29,837 0.019160 572
Grading
Excavators 1 36 0.38 25 2,736 0.019874 54
Graders 1 148 0.41 25 12,136 0.021158 257
Rubber
Tired
Dozers
1 367 0.40 25 29,360 0.020612 605
Tractors/
Loaders/
3 84 0.37 25 18,648 0.019160 357
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental:

City of Corona 94 Environmental Checklist

Backhoes
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 367 0.29 320 238,403 0.014898 3,552
Forklifts 3 82 0.2 320 125,952 0.010444
3 1,316
Generator
Sets
1 14 0.74 320 26,522 0.091046 2,415
Tractors/
Loaders/
Backhoes
3 84 0.37 320 208,858 0.019160 4,002
Welders 1 46 0.45 320 52,992 0.033867 1,795
Paving
Pavers 2 81 0.42 10 4,666 0.021546 101
Paving
Equipment
2 89 0.36 10 5,126 0.018466 95
Rollers 2 36 0.38 10 2,189 0.019840 43
Architectural
Coating
Air
Compress
ors
1 37 0.48 160 17,049 0.030882 527
Total 17,870
Source: EPD Solutions, 2023. Produced using CalEEMod outputs from Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report.

Further, Table E-2 shows that construction workers would use approximately 20,563 gallons of fuel to travel to and from the Project site, and haul trucks and vendor trucks would use approximately 8,927 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table E-2: Estimated Construction Vehicle Trip Related Fuel Consumption Construction
Source VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 28,750 6.04 4,760 0
Vendor Trucks 37,209 8.93 4,167 0
Worker Vehicles 520,849 25.33 0 20,563
Total 8,927 20,563
Source: EPD Solutions, 2023. Produced using CalEEMod outputs from Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report.

This is in addition to the construction equipment fuel listed in Table E-1, which would result in 17,870 gallons of diesel fuel and 4,545 gallons of gasoline fuel that would be used during construction of the proposed Project. Overall, construction activities would comply with all existing regulations, and would therefore not be expected to use fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner. Thus, no impacts related to construction energy would occur.

Operation.

Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips.

Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the residences, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to operate the Project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption.

The proposed Project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which is included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. The Project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with the existing Title 24 requirements (included as PPP E-1). Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in Environmental:

City of Corona 95 Environmental Checklist

a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur. As detailed in Table E-3, operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 32,866 gallons of fuel, approximately 605,530 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity, and approximately 1,379,531 British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas.

Table E-3: Net Annual Operational Energy Consumption
Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours) 605,530
Natural Gas (Thousands
British Thermal Units)
1,379,531
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT 832,499
Gallons of Gasoline Fuel 32,866
Source: EPD Solutions, 2023. Produced using CalEEMod outputs from Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency No Impact. The proposed Project would be required to meet the CALGreen energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project, as included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met.

In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. As discussed, the Project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with the existing Title 24 requirements (included as PPP E-1). As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP E-1. CALGreen Compliance: The Project is required to comply with the CALGreen Building Standards Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.05 to ensure efficient use of energy. CALGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.

PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The Project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, prepared by LSA, November 2023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix A).

21. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

N/A
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, prepared by LSA, November 2023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix A).

City of Corona General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2019. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update City of Corona General Plan 2020-2040, June 2020. Accessed: https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments- Environmental:

City of Corona 96 Environmental Checklist

divisions/planning-division/general-plan-update
City of Corona Mountain Gate Specific Plan, June 1989. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans City of Corona, Municipal Code, 2023. Accessed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 33686
City of Corona 2018 Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2018. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18442/637248910333670000 City of Corona 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2020. Accessed:
https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/department-of-water-and-power/businesses/planning-forour-future General Biological Assessment, prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services, December 2022. (HES 2022) (Appendix B).

Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc., November 2022. (Terracon 2022) (Appendix D).

Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, May 22023. (LSA 2023) (Appendix E).

Paleontological Assessment, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, April 2023. (BFSA 2023b) (Appendix F).

Phase I Cultural Resources Study, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, April 2023 (BFSA 2023a) (Appendix C).

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., Revised April 2023 (Prepared October 2022). (TCI 2022a) (Appendix G).

Phase II Limited Site Investigation, prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., October 2023. (TCI 2022b) (Appendix K).

Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by BKF Engineers, April 2023. (Appendix I).

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. “Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Corona Municipal Airport.” October 2004. Accessed: https://rcaluc.org/current-compatibility-plans SCAG. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG 2020). Accessed:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008).

Accessed: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., Revised November 2023 (Prepared March 2023). (Appendix H).
97 City of Corona Environmental Checklist

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF CORONA
Regulatory Requirement/ Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Survey. A 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure that no burrowing owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding Project activities. If burrowing owl are found to have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of construction, the Project proponent will immediately inform Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan for approval by RCA and the Wildlife Agencies prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrow owl is found, the same coordination with RCA and/or Wildlife Agencies described above will be necessary.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
MM BIO-2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If grading activities occur within the active breeding season for birds (February 1– September 15), the Project applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall be submitted to the City of Corona Planning and Development Department, Planning Division prior to
issuance of a grading permit.

The nesting survey shall include the Project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by Project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet of the designated construction area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g. 200 feet and/or subject to the Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Within 3 days
prior issuance
to issuance of
a grading
permit.

Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
98 City of Corona Environmental Checklist
Regulatory Requirement/ Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date
recommendations of the qualified biologist), and a biological monitor shall visit the site once a week during ground disturbing activities to ensure all fencing is in place and no nesting birds are being impacted.

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain and enter a monitoring and mitigation service contract with a qualified Archaeologist (“Archaeological Monitor”) for mitigation monitoring services and implement a Cultural Resource
Monitoring Program (CRMP). At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, a copy of the agreement between the Project Applicant shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department:
• A CRMP shall be prepared to guide the procedures and
protocols of an archaeological mitigation monitoring program that shall be implemented during initial onsite and offsite ground disturbing activities. The CRMP shall include, but not be limited to, the Project grading and development schedule; approved Project cultural resources mitigation measures and conditions of approval; monitoring procedures; protocols for the identification, assessment, collection, and analysis of any resource(s) observed during grading; curation guidelines; and coordination with project personnel, City staff, and any participating Native American tribe(s). The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified of any discoveries. The final CRMP shall be submitted to the City Project planner and/or inspector, the appropriate Project supervisor/engineer/etc., and monitoring Native American tribe(s), if any.
• The Archaeological Monitor shall be invited to a
preconstruction meeting with construction personnel and City and tribal representatives. The attending archaeologist shall review the provisions of the CRMP and answer any applicable questions.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
showing that
archaeologist
has been
retained for
project
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
and
during grading
activities
Project
Applicant,
Project
Archaeologist/
Planning
and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
99 City of Corona Environmental Checklist
Regulatory Requirement/ Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date
• • Full-time monitoring shall occur throughout the entire Project area, including all off-site improvement areas, during initial ground-disturbing activities. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the Archaeological Monitor determines that the overall sensitivity of the Project area is low as a result of mitigation monitoring and shall have the authority to modify and reduce the monitoring program to either periodic spot-checks or complete suspension of the monitoring program. Should the monitor(s) determine that there are no cultural resources within the Project site or off-site improvement areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease.

MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery and Native American
Notification. In the event that a significant cultural resource is discovered during ground disturbance activities, the qualified archaeologist shall notify the City and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians for purposes of inviting the Tribe to participate in the CRMP implementation and to observe any continuing ground-disturbing construction activities. Further, all ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted and the applicant and a meeting shall be convened between the developer, the consulting
archaeologist, the lead agency and a Rincon tribal representative to discuss the significance of the find. Further ground disturbance shall not resume in the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
showing that a
Native American
Monitor has
been
retained for the
Project.

During grading
and
construction
Project
Applicant,
Project
Archaeologist,
Planning
and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Native
American
Monitor
MM CUL-3 Paleontological Monitor. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City of a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). The PRMMP shall include the provision of a trained paleontological monitor during onsite soil disturbance activities beginning at a depth of five feet. The PRMMP shall include the provision of a trained paleontological monitor during onsite soil disturbance activities. The monitoring for paleontological resources shall be conducted on a full-time basis during the rough grading phases of the Project site within native soils that have the potential to harbor paleontological resources. The paleontological monitor shall be equipped to Condition of
Approval
Submittal of a
Paleontological
Resources
Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
and during
grading and
construction
Project
Applicant,
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division,
Paleontologic
al
Monitor
100
City of Corona Environmental Checklist
Regulatory Requirement/ Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date
rapidly remove any large fossil specimens encountered during excavation. During monitoring, samples of soil shall be collected and processed to recover micro-vertebrate fossils. Processing shall include wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains. If paleontological resources are unearthed or discovered during grading activities, the following recovery processes shall apply:
• Upon encountering a large deposit of bone, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted with additional field staff and in accordance with modern paleontological techniques.
• All fossils collected during the project shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the museum repository along with the specimens.
• A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities and the significance of the fossils shall be prepared.
• All fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository (such as the Western Science Center for Archaeology & Paleontology, the Riverside Metropolitan
Museum, or the San Bernardino County Museum) for permanent curation and storage.

MM CUL-4 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that
human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving activities, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community and Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
in the event
human remains
are found.

During grading
and
construction
Project
Applicant,
Project
Archaeologist/
Planning
and
Development
Department –
Planning
101
City of Corona Environmental Checklist
Regulatory Requirement/ Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date
by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC).According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement
regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

Division
102
City of Corona Environmental Checklist
PPP
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Person
Verification
Date

AESTHETICS
PPP AES-1: Lighting & Glare. The Project is required to comply with Corona Municipal Code Section 17.84.070 which requires all areas of exterior lighting to be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses and open space so that light and glare is confined within the boundaries of the Project site.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
building permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division

AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ-1: The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation
activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per
SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust
emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are
watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at
least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the
day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on
unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15
miles per hour or less.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
PPP AQ-2: The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
103
City of Corona Environmental Checklist
PPP BIO-1: Urban Forest Management Plan. The Project shall comply with guidelines and procedures for the care and
protection of Shared Responsibility Trees as described under the Urban Forest Management Plan.

Condition of
Approval
Compliance with
Urban Forest
Mgmt Plan /
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Community
Services
Department
and Planning
Division
ENERGY
PPP ENG-1: CalGreen Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code to ensure efficient use of energy as adopted under Section 15.05 of the City’s Municipal Code. CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Planning and
Development
Department –
Building
Division
PPP E-2: Idling Regulations. The Project is required to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.11.020 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
building permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Building
Division

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PPP GHG-1 Corona CAP Update Compliance. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall complete a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in
accordance with the City’s CAP Update and shall achieve the minimum number of points necessary to comply with the City of Corona Greenhouse Gas reductions goals.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
building permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
104
City of Corona Environmental Checklist

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP WQ-1: SWPPP. Prior to grading permit issuance, the
Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP
Developer) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section

13.27 Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls and the Santa Ana RWQCB NPDES Storm Water Permit Regional
Board Order No. R8-2010-0033. The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by Corona staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Development
Services
Division
PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project applicant shall have a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 13.27.120 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the Project.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Planning and
Development
Department –
Development
Services
Division

PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: School Fees: Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the
appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to
issuance of
final building
permit
issuance
Planning and
Development
Department –
Building
Division
7 EXHIBIT “B”

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN
GPA2023-0002
(THE PROPOSED LAND USE MAP IS ATTACHED)
General Plan Amendment Existing
& Proposed Land Use Designations
The Ivy Mountain Gate
City of Corona
Existing
Proposed
GC - General Commercial LMDR - Low Medium Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential LDR - Low Density Residential P - Park Subject Site

Corona City CouncilMarch 6, 2024

Corona City Council
March 6, 2024