Exhibit 3 - Planning and Housing Commission staff report — Corona City Council, March 6, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

City of Corona
Staff Report
400 S. Vicentia Ave.

Corona, CA 92882
File #: 24-0029

PLANNING AND HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATE: 2/12/2024
TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Planning & Development Department
APPLICATION REQUEST:

PP2022-0003: Precise Plan to review the site plan, architecture, landscaping and other features associated with the development of two industrial buildings totaling 334,520 square feet, located at 1375 Magnolia Avenue within the Business Park (BP) land use designation of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan. (Applicant: Jeremy Mape, B9 Magnolia Owners, LLC, 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 630, Newport Beach, CA 92660)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the Planning and Housing Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring Plan and adopt Resolution No. 2621 GRANTING PP2022-0003 based on the findings contained in the staff report and conditions of approval.

PROJECT SITE SUMMARY:

Area of Property: 16.6 acres
Existing Zoning: BP (Business Park)
Specific Plan: Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (SP01-002) Existing General Plan: Mixed Use (MU) II: Industrial/Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant
Proposed Land Use: Warehousing / Manufacturing
Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses:

N: Business Park / Channel, Warehouse & Manufacturing Uses, and Mobile Home Park E: Business Park / Channel and Warehouse & Manufacturing Uses S: M-2 (General Manufacturing) / Warehouse & Manufacturing Uses W: Commercial & Commercial Office-Business Park / Commercial Retail and Office Uses

BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted an application for a Precise Plan (PP) for the “Magnolia Avenue Business Center Project” (herein referred to as “Project”). The Project consists of the development of two speculative industrial buildings totaling 334,520 square feet on a 16.6-acre property located at 1375 City of Corona Page 1 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
speculative industrial buildings totaling 334,520 square feet on a 16.6-acre property located at 1375 Magnolia Avenue.

The property previously contained several manufacturing buildings totaling 165,250 square feet which were occupied by Clow Valve, a waterworks valve and hydrant manufacture. The applicant acquired the property in December 2021 and is demolishing the structures and associated facilities on the property in two phases. The buildings and above-ground structures were demolished in May 2023 as phase one. The demolition of the existing footings, foundations and any structure that would disturb the soil is currently under the City’s review and will be demolished in the near future as phase two.

Future uses within the new buildings will be subject to those uses permitted within the BP (Business Park) land use designation of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan. The BP designation permits industrial and warehouse uses by right. Per Section 8.2 of the Specific Plan and Section 17.91.020 (A)(1) of the Corona Municipal Code (CMC), Precise Plan review and approval is required by the Planning and Housing Commission for the proposed development project.

The project is immediately bordered by Magnolia Avenue to the south, a Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to the west, and a flood control channel to the north and east. The surrounding land uses include a mobile home park to the north beyond the channel, industrial buildings to the north and east beyond the channel, industrial buildings to the south beyond Magnolia Avenue, and the Corona Pointe commercial retail and office center to the west beyond the BNSF railroad and El Camino Avenue. A locational map is attached as Exhibit 2.

The project was initially reviewed by the Development Plan Review (DPR) Committee on April 11, 2022. The Applicant formally submitted the Precise Plan application to the City on May 31, 2022, and the application was reviewed by the Project and Environmental Review Committee (PRC) on June 23, 2022. Missing and revised items were subsequently submitted to the City, and the application was deemed complete on November 7, 2023.

The Project was originally scheduled for the Planning and Housing Commission meeting of January 22, 2024, but was continued to the February 12, 2024 meeting to allow the applicant time to review the project’s conditions of approval and prepare a technical written response to a comment letter that the City received from the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and from Blum, Collins & Ho LLP in response to the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

On January 23, 2024, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP withdrew their comment letter on the project’s MND.

Historical Uses
The project site was originally developed for the production of iron pipes and connections by American Foundry in the 1950s. In 1960, Rich Manufacturing acquired the property and moved their iron pipe manufacturing business to the project site, adding additional structures in 1967 consisting of machine shop and brass foundry operations. The site was then occupied by Clow Valve and its sister company Anaco for metal forging and casting operations until 1985, when they were acquired by McWane Division The business utilized the property for manufacturing and distribution of fire hydrants, gaskets, clamps and related metal valves.

City of Corona Page 2 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
As part of the property’s historical use, chemicals were used and released at the project site. The hazardous substances are the subject of a current remedial action under the regulatory direction of the DTSC and the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This includes metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hydrocarbons found in the soil within parts of the property.

Extensive cleanup efforts were completed by the prior owner. The final cleanup will involve the placement of an engineered soil and cement cap with the Project’s buildings over the contaminated areas. Furthermore, future grading activities associated with the Project are subject to the guidelines in the Soils Management Plan (SMP) approved by the DTSC. This information is discussed in greater detail within the Environmental Analysis section of this report and in the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit 12.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following sections discuss the details of the project including the site development, architectural design, landscaping, walls and fencing and public right-of-way improvements.

Site Plan
The project entails the redevelopment of the 16.6-acre project site with two new industrial buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) totaling 334,520 square feet and related site improvements including landscaping, parking, and infrastructure facilities. The Conceptual Site Plan is provided under Exhibit

4. Building 1 is located on the western portion of the property and has ground floor and mezzanine space totaling 238,370 square feet. Building 1 is designed to accommodate up to four future tenants and includes truck loading along the eastern side of the building with a total of 22 dock-high doors.

The truck loading area for Building 1 is oriented between both buildings. The loading area will be screened from Magnolia Avenue by a 12-foot-high concrete tilt-up wall and metal gate.

Building 2 is located on the eastern portion of the project site and has ground floor and mezzanine space totaling 96,150 square feet. Building 2 is designed to accommodate up to two future tenants and includes truck loading along the eastern side of the building with a total of 10 dock-high doors.

While the truck loading area is oriented along the eastern side of the building, this area will be screened from Magnolia Avenue by a 12-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen wall located behind the front yard setback area. Additional screening will be provided by a tubular steel fence with climbing vines to screen the loading area from westbound traffic on Magnolia Avenue.

The buildings are set back 68 to 88 feet from Magnolia Avenue. Building 1 is set back 64 feet from the west property line and over 41 feet from the north property line (adjacent to the channel).

Building 2 is set back 46 to 210 feet from the east property line (adjacent to the channel). The placement of the buildings exceeds the minimum required building setbacks required by the Specific Plan for the BP designation, which are 15 feet from Magnolia Avenue and 10 feet from the flood control channel. No building setback is required from internal property lines.

In compliance with the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, both buildings feature two shaded employee break areas equipped with benches and umbrellas, for a total of four break areas and various bike racks throughout the site. Additionally, each building will have two trash enclosure units, for a total of four units in compliance with the CMC. The trash enclosure units will be constructed with the same architectural design elements to match the buildings and each will have wrought iron, selfCity of Corona Page 3 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024 powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
same architectural design elements to match the buildings and each will have wrought iron, selfclosing doors with opaque screening.

Parking
In accordance with Chapter 17.76 (Off-Street Parking) of the CMC, the project requires a total of 414 parking spaces for both buildings. The project is capable of meeting this requirement by providing 426 parking spaces utilizing the CMC’s ratios of 1:250 square feet for office and 1:1000 square feet of warehouse space. Building 1 provides 289 parking spaces and Building 2 provides 137 parking spaces.

Per the CMC, utilizing the city's warehouse parking ratio of 1:1000 square feet of warehouse area for the buildings requires Zoning Administrator approval per Section 17.99.065. This process requires the developer to file a Parking Determination (PD) application with the Planning Division for each building, which must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. This requirement is a condition of the project’s approval (Exhibit 3).

Architecture
Buildings 1 and 2 consist of concrete tilt-up construction, with decorative architectural focal points at the main office entrance areas. The building facades feature reveals along all panel walls, spandrel glass and decorative metal canopies throughout focal points of all building elevations. Colors consist of whites, a variety of greys, blue reflective glazing, and clear anodized mullions. Colored Elevations are attached as Exhibit 6. The roll-up doors will also be colored to match the building.

Building 1 is proposed at a height of 40 feet while Building 2 is proposed at a height of 41 feet (measured at the top of parapet). Both buildings are within the maximum allowable height limit of 95 feet per the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan.

The project’s architectural design is consistent with the architectural character outlined within the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, specifically the main entries and highlighted massing throughout the elevations, including the use of bold accent colors, building articulations, varying horizontal planes between entry/office elements and the rest of the building facade.

Signage
The Corona Magnolia Specific Plan requires the submittal of a comprehensive sign program subject to the city for review and approval in conjunction with a Precise Plan for any new development in the specific plan area. The applicant has prepared a conceptual Master Sign Program plan in compliance with the Specific Plan, Exhibit 9.

Per the Master Sign Program, the applicant proposes three project identification monument signs, one located at the southwest corner of the site near the Magnolia and El Camino intersection and the remaining two located at the entrance of each driveway on Magnolia Avenue. The monument signs feature the name of the center along with the site address and measure 5-feet in height by 12 feet in width. The sign program also includes tenant wall and freestanding directional signage.

The proposed signage complies with the Specific Plan’s sign development standards in terms of placement, height, and maximum allowable sign area. The freestanding monument and directional City of Corona Page 4 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
placement, height, and maximum allowable sign area. The freestanding monument and directional signs are architecturally consistent with the project, including materials and colors. The applicant is required to submit the final signage plan to the Planning and Development Department for review and permitting before installation. All plans will be required to comply with all codes in place at the time of permitting, including the Specific Plan and any applicable conditions of approval.

Landscaping
The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 7) includes a variety of evergreen screen trees ranging from 24-to-36-inch box trees, a variety of screen shrubs, screen vines and groundcovers. Afghan pine trees are proposed along the eastern property line to provide screening of the truck loading area.

Afghan trees are commonly used for screening along edges because of their height, which can reach up to 40 feet and include dense foliage. Additional 36-inch box accent trees are proposed at the project’s Magnolia frontage to enhance the project entrance, with 24-inch box perimeter trees proposed along the site’s entire front setback area. Additionally, landscaping is provided along the frontage of both buildings as required by the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan and the city’s Commercial and Industrial Landscape Design Guidelines.

All new landscape materials proposed for the project are required to be California-friendly, and irrigation is required to be water efficient to meet the city’s landscape design guidelines for industrial projects. Formal landscape and irrigation plans will be subject to final review and approval by city staff.

Due to the presence of contaminated soils on the site, and in conformance with the project’s Soil Management Plan (SMP), the northwestern portions of the project site would be capped with at least six inches of concrete and 10 inches of clean, compacted soil. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows the extent of the soil cap limit. Due to existing constraints of the soil and obligations pertaining to the approved SMP, landscape areas within the soil cap will be limited to decomposed granite, cobblers and gravel, and low-level shrubbery as feasible. Trees will be limited in the area of the soil cap, however, where ground mounding is permitted, trees are proposed to be planted in those areas. In exchange for the reduced landscaping within the capped area, staff requested that the applicant upsize the originally proposed 15-gallon sized trees at the corner of Magnolia and El Camino to 24-inch box and 36-inch box. The applicant’s landscape plan reflects the upsized trees.

Note that the applicant’s Site Plan incorrectly depicts a 6-foot-wide perimeter landscape planter along the property’s west property line. As shown by the landscape plan, there is no landscaping proposed along the west perimeter because this area lies within the boundaries of the capped area. Instead, the applicant will construct a new 9-foot-high screen wall along the project’s west property line which will screen the grounds of the project from the railroad right-of-way and El Camino Avenue. There is an existing tree line along El Camino Avenue that will help to enhance the project’s view from this street.

Grading
Grading activities associated with the project include 30,500 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 36,900 cy of fill, requiring the import of approximately 6,400 cy of soil material. Project grading would include the removal of existing compacted fill soils at depths between 5.0 and 7.5 feet, and over-excavation would be required to establish the proposed building pads. The project’s preliminary grading plan is City of Corona Page 5 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
would be required to establish the proposed building pads. The project’s preliminary grading plan is provided under Exhibit 10.

Perimeter Fencing and Walls
As presented in the project’s Fencing Plan (Exhibit 8), the applicant is proposing the following improvements:
· An existing chain-link fence located along the western property line will be replaced with a 9- foot high masonry wall;
· New 12-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen walls will be placed at the entrances of both truck yards along with motorized rolling gates with dense opaque meshing to screen the truck yard areas from Magnolia Avenue;
· Approximately 125 feet of existing chain-link fencing behind the front setback area along the eastern property line will be replaced with an 8-foot-high tubular steel fencing enhanced with 9-foot high splitface pilasters; and
· A new 8-foot-high tubular steel fence is proposed between Buildings 1 and 2 with dense meshing within the first 175 feet to provide added screening within Building 1’s truck yard area.

The project’s fencing and wall plan is in compliance with the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, the city’s Commercial and Industrial Landscape Design Guidelines and Chapter 17.70 of the CMC. Additionally, the project is conditioned to have an anti-graffiti coating applied to all walls.

On-Site Utility and Drainage Improvements
Water and sewer service to the project site will be provided by the City of Corona. The project will connect to an existing 10-inch diameter water main within Magnolia Avenue. Water service for fire hydrants also would connect to the existing 10-inch water main. Sewer service is available for the project from an existing 18-inch diameter sewer main within Magnolia Avenue.

Development of the project will increase impervious surface coverage on the site and increase surface runoff. Surface run off, however, will be collected by a system of gutters and inlets that will discharge through a storm drain system into the existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe that outlets to the Temescal Wash Flood Control Channel. Runoff would be treated by several proposed Modular Wetland System (MWS) Units, which would be installed beneath the site’s surface near the northern property line.

Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from Magnolia Avenue via two proposed 50-footwide driveways. The southwest driveway is proposed to have a new four-way signalized intersection with Sherborn Avenue to the south to allow for full access. The applicant is responsible for completing signal improvements at this intersection which includes the construction of a new signal on Sherborn Avenue facing the southwest driveway and modifying the existing traffic signals to include signalization for the southwest driveway. The east driveway will be restricted to right-in and right-out access only due to a raised median that will be constructed on Magnolia Avenue in front of the east driveway. Both driveways will be enhanced with a stamped and stained concrete pattern.

Pedestrian access to the buildings will be provided from the sidewalk via on-site walkways.

City of Corona Page 6 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
The property has an existing entrance located on the El Camino frontage that crosses the BNSF railroad. The applicant does not intend to utilize this entrance and will block access to this driveway with the proposed 9-foot-high screen wall that will be located along the site’s westerly property line.

Vehicular circulation will come primarily from the I-15 freeway to the west and from 6th Street to the east of the project site. Truck access to the loading dock areas is provided along the east sides of Buildings 1 and 2. The site contains adequate circulation as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer and Fire Department.

Based on the project’s trip generation analysis prepared by the applicant’s licensed traffic engineer Urban Crossroads (dated February 1, 2022), the project is forecast to generate vehicular and truck traffic from construction and operational activities. The project is forecast to generate a combined 1,268 trips per day with 114 trips in the AM peak hour and 119 trips in the PM peak hour. The prior use on the property generated a total of 904 trips per day with 120 trips in the AM peak hour and 130 trips in the PM peak hour. As a result, the project is anticipated to generate 364 more trips per day with 6 fewer AM and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips compared to the prior use.

The project is anticipated to result in a net reduction to the AM and PM peak hours in comparison to the prior use and would contribute fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips to any driveway or off-site study area intersection. As such, the effects to off-site intersections are anticipated to be the same or less than those occurring with the prior use. Therefore, no additional traffic-related analysis was required as a result of the proposed project and as confirmed by the City’s Traffic Engineer.

Public Improvements
The applicant is required to dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Magnolia Avenue and construct the missing public improvements along the north side of Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the project site. The improvements include the construction of a 14-foot-wide raised median, travel lanes along the northern side of the roadway ranging in width from 48 to 53 feet (with the additional width occurring at the approach to El Camino Avenue), curb and gutter, and a 12 -foot-wide landscaped parkway that includes a curb-adjacent sidewalk.

Additionally, the applicant is required to extend the sidewalk beyond the project’s frontage westward and across the BNSF railroad to the intersection of Magnolia and El Camino and make improvements to the BNSF railroad crossing at this intersection. The railroad crossing improvements are currently part of the City’s Magnolia Avenue Bridge Widening project, a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) which will be constructed by the Public Works Department. Should the applicant begin construction first before the City, the applicant will be required to complete the railroad improvements on both sides of Magnolia Avenue and the City will reimburse the applicant for the construction costs that are the responsibility of the City. The applicant and City will be entering into a Cost Reimbursement Agreement that will detail each entities fair share cost in the construction of the BNSF improvements.

It should be noted that as part of the Magnolia Avenue Bridge Widening project, the City plans to improve and widen Magnolia Avenue between El Camino Avenue and 1,000 feet east of All American Way to increase the roadway capacity from four to six lanes with a Class II bike lane consistent with the City’s General Plan. While the proposed Project is required to make improvements to Magnolia City of Corona Page 7 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
the City’s General Plan. While the proposed Project is required to make improvements to Magnolia Avenue along the project site’s frontage and to the adjacent BNSF railroad crossing, the portions of the planned improvements to Magnolia Avenue that do not front along the project site, including the proposed bridge, are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Distribution of Plans
The proposed development plans were circulated to service providers (Fire Department, Corona Police Department, etc.) and utility companies, allowing each entity the opportunity to review the proposal and determine the impacts of the development relative to their services. In addition, the plans were circulated to internal divisions/departments such as Development Services, Traffic, Building and Public Works.

Comments from these agencies have been considered and incorporated as modifications to the plans or were included as recommended conditions to this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Site Remediation Efforts
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site by Hazard Management Consulting (HMC), dated February 9, 2023, and included as Technical Appendix F1 to the Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which is attached as Exhibit 12. Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the MND discusses in great detail the previous site remedial efforts overseen by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) including removal of the former foundry waste, removal of sand blast residue, general site cleanup as well as the removal and closure of four underground storage tanks (USTs).

Additionally, the Project site has been subjected to a thorough review and investigation by DTSC since 2000 when DTSC initially investigated the site and found nine areas of concern on the property.

The investigation conducted by DTSC found evidence of metals, PCBs, and hydrocarbons in shallow soil at elevated concentrations. Due to the findings of PCBs at the project site, the EPA was notified as they have exclusive jurisdiction over PCB cleanups. In the subsequent years, several additional investigations were conducted by DTSC which included soil and groundwater sampling. Several remediation efforts were completed by the prior owner under a DTSC approved workplan which included excavating and transporting the contaminated soil off-site and capping some of the areas with compacted soil and/or asphalt. The remediation efforts were documented in a Corrective Measures Implementation Report, which was approved by the DTSC on April 14, 2022 During the implementation of the workplan, additional areas containing PCBs in shallow soil were found. As a result, in June 2022, the EPA issued the prior owner and the applicant, who had acquired the property at this point, a PCB cleanup plan which required the PCB “hot spots” to be removed from the site and all remaining PCBs be retained onsite under an engineered cap consisting of a mix of six-inch concrete, building footprint and 10-inch compacted soil. The final cap and closure of the remediation efforts would include the Project’s future building slabs and pavement sections. The hot spot removal commenced in February 2023.

As part of the prior owner’s required remediation efforts, a Land Use Covenant (LUC) was recorded for the property, a Soil Management Plan was developed to address future grading activities at the City of Corona Page 8 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
for the property, a Soil Management Plan was developed to address future grading activities at the site, and an Operations and Maintenance Plan was put in place to protect personnel and visitors.

These are described further below.
· Land Use Covenant. A Land Use Covenant (LUC) was recorded with the County Recorder on November 18, 2021 which runs with the land. The LUC limits the project site to commercial and industrial uses (no residential, hospitals, day care, or schools are allowed) and imposes other requirements of the Soils Management Plan (SMP) for the purpose of protecting human health. The LUC also prohibits certain activities including grading or drilling for water, oil, or gas within the capped area without approval from the DTSC. The current owner and all subsequent property owners are required to conduct an annual inspection of the property verifying compliance with the LUC for the first five years from January 15, 2021 followed by a five-year report every five years thereafter until the DTSC and EPA both determine that fiveyear reports are no longer necessary. The current LUC will be revised and re-recorded upon completion of the pending field work.
· Soil Management Plan. Any future grading activities occurring on the property are subject to the regulations and procedures of the property’s Soil Management Plan approved by the DTSC in August 2021. The Plan ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations, protects the health and safety of construction workers, and addresses stockpile management and disposal of soil.
· Operations & Maintenance Plan. An Operations and Maintenance Plan was prepared and approved by the DTSC in August 2021 to establish a set of procedures for the inspections set by the Land Use Covenant to prevent contact with contaminated soil, dispersion of contaminated soil, protect site personnel, contractors, personnel conducting inspection activities, and/or visitors.

Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Per Section 15070(b) of the State Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 6.02 of the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project since the Initial Study identified that the project’s potentially significant effects to the environment are capable of being mitigated to less than significant.

Therefore, based on the project’s mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring and reporting program identified in the MND, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project may have a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment.

The MND is therefore recommended for adoption (Exhibit 12).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The applicant has paid the applicable application processing fees for the project.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
A 30-day public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, as well as advertised in the Sentinel Weekly News and posted at the project site. Additionally, the Notice Of Intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project was electronically sent to the State Clearinghouse under SCH No. 2023120166. As of the preparation of this report, staff received a written response from the DTSC, which is attached as Exhibit 13. The applicant has provided a response to the DTSC letter which is attached as Exhibit 14. Staff also received a written City of Corona Page 9 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
provided a response to the DTSC letter which is attached as Exhibit 14. Staff also received a written response from Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, however on January 23, 2024, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP withdrew their comment letter on the project’s MND, see Exhibit 15.

STAFF ANALYSIS
The project site has been underutilized for over 50 decades by outdated buildings and structures, including on-site paving, chainlink fencing, lack of public improvements, landscaping, etc. The site is currently incompatible with the newer commercial and office developments to the west and industrial developments to the south and east of the project site.

The proposed industrial development will transform this property by redeveloping the entire 16.6- acre site with two new industrial buildings with modern architectural design features, new landscaping, new fencing and decorative walls, new stamped driveway entries and new decorative monument and wall signage. Additionally, the project will be compatible with surrounding newer developments. The proposed speculative industrial buildings are designed for future warehouse/manufacturing types of uses which are uses permitted by right per the Business Park (BP) land use designation. The buildings’ height and layout result in a project that fits the scale of the neighboring industrial developments. The buildings will attract tenants and employees to the area who will likely utilize the nearby restaurants and retail shops. Therefore, the Project is not only appropriate for the site and surrounding area, but also supports the businesses in the area.

The project, as designed and conditioned, meets all applicable development standards pertaining to building setbacks, parking, landscaping, and signage. The project has adequate vehicular access from the adjacent streets and the architecture for the buildings includes materials and colors that are compatible with the surrounding developments.

The project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption, as all potential environmental impacts associated with the project are capable of being mitigated to less than significant impacts.

Therefore, the Planning and Development Department recommends approval of PP2022-0003 based on the findings listed below and the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit 3.

FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR PP2022-0003

1. An initial study (environmental assessment) has been conducted by the City of Corona so as to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but:
a. The project applicant has agreed to revise the project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no significant effects would occur, as reflected in the Mitigation and Monitoring Program within the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit 3. b. There is no substantial evidence before the City that the revised project may have a significant effect.

City of Corona Page 10 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029

2. All the conditions necessary to granting a Precise Plan as set forth in Section 17.91 of the Corona Municipal Code do exist in reference to PP2022-0003 for the following reasons:
a. The proposal is consistent with the Mixed Use II (Industrial/Commercial) land use designation of the General Plan because this land use is intended for intended for low polluting types of manufacturing operations, research and development, e-commerce, wholesale activities, distribution facilities, and campus-style industrial and business parks. Also, the project has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.48 which does not exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio limit of 0.5 established by the General Plan for the Mixed Use II land use category.
b. The proposal complies with the Business Park (BP) designation of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, which permits warehouse distribution and manufacturing uses within Planning Area 5. The project also adheres to the objective development standards of the BP design.
c. The proposal has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable requirements and procedures of the act have been followed. As justified in Finding # 1, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption as the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but the project applicant has agreed to revise the project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no significant effects would occur.
d. The site is of a sufficient size and configuration to accommodate the design and scale of the proposed development, including buildings and elevations, landscaping, parking and other physical features of the proposal, as demonstrated by the applicant’s project plans for PP2022-0003.
e. The design, scale and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, 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 the proposal complies with the City’s development standards under the Corona Municipal Code and the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, as demonstrated by the applicant’s project plans for PP2022-0003. Furthermore, the project incorporates walls and landscape screening to buffer loading areas to reduce potential noise and visual impacts. f. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by improving an underutilized property, and will provide for harmonious, orderly and attractive development of the site. The proposed industrial development will transform this property by redeveloping the entire 16.6-acre site with two new industrial buildings with modern architectural design features, new landscaping, new fencing and decorative walls, new stamped driveway entries and new decorative monument and wall signage.
g. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of City of Corona Page 11 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029
occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that is aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance, as demonstrated by the plans for PP2022- 0003.Furthermore, the project meet the design standards of the City’s adopted Industrial/Commercial Design Guidelines and Sections 5.0 and 7.0 of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan.

3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
a. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.4, because it proactively encourages the reuse of underutilized, vacant, or obsolete industrial buildings with higher value uses that are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. b. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.1, because it provides for the development of new manufacturing, research and development, professional office and similar uses in accordance with the project site’s General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II (Industrial/Commercial), which is intended for various types of industrial and commercial uses.
c. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.6 because it is consistent with the City’s industrial design guidelines, which require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive architecture, and be compatible with adjoining uses in consideration of the principles listed within the LU 12.6 policy.
d. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED 1.7, because it contributes to recruitment of development of new industries and businesses that build upon Corona’s existing diversifying industrial base, transportation infrastructure, increasing demand for professional and medical services, and its proximity to key regional business centers.
e. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy PS-3.2, because it complies with the applicable land use regulations in the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, building and fire codes, and Corona Municipal Code; provides enhanced setbacks from surrounding land uses; and limits landscaping in restricted areas to minimize the risk of releasing hazardous materials. The project is also subject to the procedures, restrictions and regulations in the DTSC approved Land Use Covenant, Operations & Maintenance Plan, and Soil Management Plan to prevent the release of contaminated soils to protect human health.

PREPARED BY: ROCIO LOPEZ, CONSULTING PLANNER
REVIEWED BY: EVA CHOI, SENIOR PLANNER
REVIEWED BY: SANDRA VANIAN, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBMITTED BY: JOANNE COLETTA, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Corona Page 12 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-0029

EXHIBITS

1. Resolution No. 2621

2. Locational and Zoning Map

3. Conditions of Approval

4. Site Plan

5. Floor Plans

6. Elevations and Colored Renderings

7. Conceptual Landscape Plan

8. Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan

9. Conceptual Sign Plan

10. Preliminary Grading Plan

11. Applicant’s Letter, dated May 27, 2022

12. Environmental Documentation

13. DTSC Comment letter to the MND, dated January 3, 2024

14. Response to DTSC’s comment to the MND (dated: January 30, 2024)

15. Withdrawal letter from Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (dated: January 23, 2024) Case Planner: Rocio Lopez (951) 736-2293
City of Corona Page 13 of 13 Printed on 2/8/2024
powered by Legistar™

RESOLUTION NO. 2621
APPLICATION NUMBER: PP2022-0003

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND HOUSING

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CORONA,

CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A PRECISE PLAN TO

REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURE,

LANDSCAPING AND OTHER FEATURES ASSOCIATED

WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS TOTALING 334,520 SQUARE FEET
LOCATED AT 1375 MAGNOLIA AVENUE WITHIN THE

BUSINESS PARK (BP) LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
CORONA MAGNOLIA SPECIFIC PLAN. (JEREMY MAPE,
B9 MAGNOLIA OWNERS, LLC)
WHEREAS, the application to the City of Corona, California, for a Precise Plan under the provisions of Chapter 17.91 in the Corona Municipal Code, has been duly submitted to said City's Planning and Housing Commission to review the site plan, architecture, landscaping and other features associated with the development of two industrial buildings totaling 334,520 square feet located at 1375 Magnolia Avenue within the Business Park (BP) land use designation of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Housing Commission held a noticed public hearing on January 22, 2024, and continued the public hearing for PP2022-0003 to February 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Housing Commission held a public hearing for PP2022-0003 on February 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning and Housing Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for PP2022-0003 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b) and Section 6.02 of the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, because based the information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative records for this project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period and presented to the Planning and Housing Commission, the Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2621
APPLICATION NO. PP2022-0003
PAGE | 2
finds that potential environmental impacts of this project either have no impact or are less-thansignificant.

WHEREAS, after close of said hearing, the Commission by formal action, found that all the conditions necessary to granting a Precise Plan as set forth in Corona Municipal Code Section 17.91.070 do exist in reference to PP2022-0003 based on the evidence presented to the Commission during said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Housing Commission based its recommendation to approve PP2022-0003 and adopt the MND on certain conditions of approval and the findings set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING AND HOUSING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CORONA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. CEQA Findings. As the decision-making body for this PP2022- 0003, the Planning and Housing Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative records for this Precise Plan, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning and Housing Commission, the Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the city, that PP2022-0003 may have a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 2. Precise Plan Findings. Pursuant to Corona Municipal Code (“CMC”) section 17.91.070 and based on the entire record before the Planning and Housing Commission, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Commission, the Commission hereby makes and adopts the following findings:

1. An initial study (environmental assessment) has been conducted by the City of Corona so as to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but:
a. The project applicant has agreed to revise the project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no significant effects would occur, as reflected in the Mitigation and Monitoring Program within the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit 12 and 3.
b. There is no substantial evidence before the City that the revised project may have a significant effect.

2. All the conditions necessary to granting a Precise Plan as set forth in Section 17.91 of the Corona Municipal Code do exist in reference to PP2022-0003 for the following reasons:
a. The proposal is consistent with the Mixed Use II (Industrial/Commercial) land RESOLUTION NO. 2621
APPLICATION NO. PP2022-0003
PAGE | 3
use designation of the General Plan because this land use is intended for intended for low polluting types of manufacturing operations, research and development, e-commerce, wholesale activities, distribution facilities, and campus-style industrial and business parks. Also, the project has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.48 which does not exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio limit of 0.5 established by the General Plan for the Mixed Use II land use category. b. The proposal complies with the Business Park (BP) designation of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, which permits warehouse distribution and manufacturing uses within Planning Area 5. The project also adheres to the objective development standards of the BP design.
c. The proposal has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable requirements and procedures of the act have been followed. As justified in Finding # 1, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption as the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but the project applicant has agreed to revise the project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no significant effects would occur.
d. The site is of a sufficient size and configuration to accommodate the design and scale of the proposed development, including buildings and elevations, landscaping, parking and other physical features of the proposal, as demonstrated by the applicant’s project plans for PP2022-0003. e. The design, scale and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, 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 the proposal complies with the City’s development standards under the Corona Municipal Code and the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, as demonstrated by the applicant’s project plans for PP2022-0003. Furthermore, the project incorporates walls and landscape screening to buffer loading areas to reduce potential noise and visual impacts.
f. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood by improving an underutilized property, and will provide for harmonious, orderly and attractive development of the site. The proposed industrial development will transform this property by redeveloping the entire

16.6-acre site with two new industrial buildings with modern architectural design features, new landscaping, new fencing and decorative walls, new stamped driveway entries and new decorative monument and wall signage. g. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that is aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance, as demonstrated by the plans for PP2022-0003.Furthermore, the project meet the design standards of the City’s adopted Industrial/Commercial Design Guidelines and Sections 5.0 and 7.0 of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan.

RESOLUTION NO. 2621
APPLICATION NO. PP2022-0003
PAGE | 4

3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
a. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.4, because it proactively encourages the reuse of underutilized, vacant, or obsolete industrial buildings with higher value uses that are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
b. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.1, because it provides for the development of new manufacturing, research and development, professional office and similar uses in accordance with the project site’s General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II (Industrial/Commercial), which is intended for various types of industrial and commercial uses. c. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12.6 because it is consistent with the City’s industrial design guidelines, which require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive architecture, and be compatible with adjoining uses in consideration of the principles listed within the LU 12.6 policy. d. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED 1.7, because it contributes to recruitment of development of new industries and businesses that build upon Corona’s existing diversifying industrial base, transportation infrastructure, increasing demand for professional and medical services, and its proximity to key regional business centers.
e. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy PS-3.2, because it complies with the applicable land use regulations in the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, building and fire codes, and Corona Municipal Code; provides enhanced setbacks from surrounding land uses; and limits landscaping in restricted areas to minimize the risk of releasing hazardous materials. The project is also subject to the procedures, restrictions and regulations in the DTSC approved Land Use Covenant, Operations & Maintenance Plan, and Soil Management Plan to prevent the release of contaminated soils to protect human health.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be delivered to the City Clerk of said City and a copy thereof be sent to the applicant therefore at the address of said applicant as set forth in the application for said Precise Plan.

LOCATIONAL & ZONING MAP
PP2022-0003
1375 MAGNOLIA AVENUE
ZONING LEGEND:

BP: Business Park
M1: Light Manufacturing
M2: General Manufacturing
COBP: Commercial Office Business Park
OP: Office Park
C: Commercial
BP
Subject Site
BP
BP
COBP M2
M2
C
M2
M1
OP

!"
#
$% & ' () *+ ,-'. /(+0,/(+ 1(/,'+ 2 - *0*01 + //(01+/ 32 /,00+ **/- 4(1 5 6+101% 70(81 /,00+ () **/- 4(1 5 6+101% 70(81 ), 6/(* () 9(0:% 70(81 ;,1+< % =% &//. +0> )/. +1 *0:+< 2 /('*> 32 4& 4(1 () ?<,(+ @ =A. 4;4 $$; &//-> 0B,0'+% C% 4(+0,/(+ /8> 2 +( (//,0 -3+ 2 2(,0 () DEE *' ( FEE '. G(+1> 20, 6,01> +1 HEE *' ( $EEE ' (+ 6,+1> +1 I10 J(1>% &**/+ '> **> )(0 +( 80+/ 32 2 7+++< 8(+ ( /(+0,/ (,1 () 2 />K +(+L*0'- /(+0,/(+ 2(,0. *,0,+ ( 4G4 $F%DA%EAEMJN% &**/+ 2 ,-' +( ,1> *0 () 2 +( 80+/ **/(+ ,-' +>O+< /(+0,/(+ +( ',01 2 +0 +8 +1 ,% @2 +( 8 2 +( P/1 2 P0(0 +( ' 1+)1 + @- $ () 4G4 $F%DQ%EAE% @2 +( 80+/ 0B,0 2 **0(8 () 2 />K ;(01 () R(++< &1S,'+%
&**/+ 2 +()> 2 01+ () T 4(0(+ G(- J(' 70:. (/1 ( 2 +(02 () 2 ,-S/ . 32+ /(+0,/(+ 2(,0 (//,0 (,1 () 2 +(0' /(+0,/(+ 2(,0% U&111 -> 2 7+++< +1 J(,+< 4(''(+ (+ I-0,0> $=. =E=AV% A% ?(()+< '0 2 - 4 &%
Q% & 2 ' () ;,1+< 7+ 42/: ,-'. 2 **/+ 2 /('*> 32 2 />W *+ /2/: ,-' 0B,0'+ 32/2 +/,1 2 )((3+< 7( 7+ X I(,+1(+ 7+ X I((0 7+ X 4+< +1 0(() )0'+< *+ X Y/0/ 7+ M/0/ 08/ 2 - ,+10<0(,+1 *0 4(0(+ G,+/* 4(1 6/(+ $Q%EHN. +/,1+< O () '+ 3/2. +,'-0 +1 O () 08/ +0+/ /(+1,/(0. /0/, /21, +1 1'+1 (1% X 7,'-+< +1 30 *+. ('0/. +/,1+< ,+10<0(,+1 1<0'. 30 **+< 1<0'. 30 (0 */ +: (/(+. )P,0 ,+. < **+< +1 8+ X G/2+/ *+. 2+< +1 0 /(+1(++< 1<0'. +1 B,*'+ /21, X T+1/* +1 Z00<(+ *+[ 6,-' )(,0 MAN /('* 1/21 )0(' -,1+< *+%
H% I(0 **0 *+ ,-'. +/,1 3( M=N () 0,/,0 //,(+. +0<> /(+08(+ //,(+ +1 ( 0*(0% &0/2/\Y+<+0 '* +1 3 <+,0 0B,01 *0(0 ( ,-' () *+ /2/:% F% ]*(+ ++ '*0(8'+ *+ /2/: ,-' 20 '> - 11(+ ;,1+< *0'+ 0B,0'+% D% 6*0 70' 0 0B,01 )(0 9. I+/. T<2 6+101. 6<+<. 6(0 7^ 6>' 5 @02 Y+/(,0% Z1+)> ' +1 ]+10 6*0 70' )(0 2 *0(S/ (+ )0(+ () *+% _% 4('*> 32 2 4(0(+ ;,0<0> `01++/ a $Q%Q= M 4(0(+ G,+/* 4(1 b 2*\\/(1-00>%'<%/('\/(1\/(0(+\\(8083N% $E% & /(+0/(0 ', 2(3 *0(() () 6 +1 4> /+. +1 3(0:'+W /('*+(+ +,0+/ ( 2 4> *0(0 ( 2 ,+/ () *0'%
$$% ;,+W 2 +( (*+ )(0 (*0(+ *0(0 ( *(+< () 40)/ () `//,*+/> . (0 @'*(00> 40)/ () `//,*+/>. 10'+1 -> 2 ;,1+< `))/. +1 ,1 -> 2 ;,1+< 8(+%
c!#d efg!
h ijiikjjjl
&**1 mnlonijii&**0(81 inoinijip
4(1 YP*01
6,
q
70+ 70(S/ ijiik
jjjr

s
!t t!"! sf!ud v wix
uty tz
y llp{mij
|yvdy
6 &110 ol}m

q {
~!
!f s!{ !
d!
u !# {

mjj !s
d !ud!

"!{
e
d! lj !s
d !# {
ij
/0*(+
&**/+
$ () _

c!#d ut
d
u

d v
u

!
"

!
#$
%#!
#
&
%
#"'
"
#"

('

*#$+!#
,

!
-'$
!.
/
#!
#
"
*

0!1$'

2!2'2
!'2)

+
345
1$
#!
#5
#!

1#6$7#!6$
6#8!.
"6#1
"9
2!2'2
"#

"5
)1&1$

6#8!.
#!

+#1$

"
#"

('

*#$+!#
,

!
-'$
!.
/
#!
#
"
*

:
;!
#66

*!"
'1
!
<#"

%#!#.
2 !

$#!
#!

=
1&1$!.
<8"

"
"#$$
)

8 6

!
"

2#!
#!

#66$1#!
5 #!

##$#)$

+
!"6
1 !
)&
*
&

6
"
!
#

"
#

#$$

2
"
!
#11
#!1

*#$+!#
,

-'$
!.
/
#!
#
"
*

?1'2
!
#
!
>1

2!"
#

"
126$#!1

2!2'2

1&1$!.
+
>#"

#$"

)&
*;@
,

!
"#$$
)

)'$
!.
!"6
1
6

""'#!1

+
*

+1#

+
A11'6#!1&

B!#$

;66#$
C
D#"
#!

1&1$!.

!1$"'
"
"#$$
)

#11
"")$

6
*-*
1#6

-
#!

2 2!2'2

2
!"!"
+

*
&E"
>#"

#'$

F?<7<#"

%#!#.
2 !

G
<$$#2
*##"1
HIGJHG:IHKL

!$#.

6$#!"
#!

#$"
+
1!"
'1
!
+

#"7
1&1$!.

!1$"'
"
I
;$$
+

"5
!1$'
!.
)'

5
11'6#!1&
+

"5
66

&

$62
!

#M5
#!

"1$
+

"
2'"

)

!
+'$$
6

""'#!1

+
)'$
!.
6 2
"

;!&

$62
!

26#1

#66$&

6N
1 2'"

)

!
+'$$
6

0*

*+A

""'#!1

O

+
?
+

/')2

#$"
+

6N
1 !
+!

+
6$#!"
>7
!

P
?
+

/')2

#$"
"#$$
)

"')2

-'$
!.

?
6
+
=

>
Q
;66#$
)
+

)
.!!!.
!"
#$$#
!
J

+
=
('

/6
1#$
0!"6
1 !"

RH
*-*
/
1 !
JRI
Q
=
('

/
'1
'#$
A)"
#
!"
+

6N
1
K
D"
N
1
('
"
#

G*!"
'1
!
%

!.
>

&'
-'$
!.
0!"6
1

('
"
!.
#!&
!"6
1 !"5
1!
#1

-'$
!.
0!"6
1 !
/'6
"
#

HIGJ:OGIR

!"6
1
#"".!

6N
1 #!

&'
6
G
1!"
'1
!
2 !.
H
D

6N
1 ".!
#!

#$$
>8
"#$$
126$&
>

!!2
!
#$

"
1
!"
26"

#.
!1
"
STU
VW

X Y
Z[

$#1

?
6#
2 !

?=
122
!
"
!
6$#!"
#"
.
!
#$
!

"

;$$
6N
1 "
"#$$
126$&
>

*
&
+
*!#
B

?
6#
2 !

*!"
'1
!
/
#!
#

;
16&
+
>1
"
##$#)$

1!#1#.
N
1 "
"#$$
#

#66

#$$
>
#

#11
""
+2

>
FL

1 !"
#!

&
#!
"
6
!.

+$>

#11
6 6

12)'"
)$

1!"
'1
!
:
/

"
"#$$
!

R\
'!$
""
#66

*
+
#!

*
&
3!.!

C
;!&

#

)"
'1
!
"'1
#"

"
1!

"
&
+
#
)'$
!.5

11

5 15

!
'

"
!

1$
#
>

+
+

#11
""

"
"#$$
6

#
2!2'2
1$
#

+
++

!
FIL
+

'!$
""

#66

*
+
I
;
]!M
#
$18
"#$$
)

+
.#

F"L
!

"
6N
1
D
#66$&
+
#
]!M
6
'1

6"P77>>>8!M)M127 O
;
]!M
-M
"#$$
)

"
)'"!
""
D
#66$&
+
#
]!M
6
'1

6"P77>>>8!M)M127 J
;
2!2'2
+

+$>
+
:IRR
.#$$!"
6
2!'

R
6"
"#$$
)

+
!
'"
#$
"
'1
'
"
K
0+

IRR
$!
#$
+

"
1

"#$$
)

>
FL
"
6##

6!
"
+
1!!
1 !
H
B

&
#!
"
#

)

"6#1

#
2#M2'2
IR
+

#6#

R

*$#""
;
+!.
2#

#$
!
#$$
"
'1
'
"
6

*!#
%'!16#$
*

;
6')$1
"#+

&
#

122'!1#
!
"
'
&
"

('

"
6N
1 5
6

""'#!1

+
#
)'$
!.
6 2

*!"'$

6#
2 !

+
"6
1+1

('
2 !
"
+

"
"
'
&

'
.'

"
##$#)$

!$!

1!#1#.7+

,
"
#!

#)#

2 !

"#$$
)

2#!
#!

"
#"
!

#
+

#^#

'!
$

$62
!

:
;
"6
1+1
#

""5
#"".!

*
&
+
*!#5
')$1
<8"
?
6#
2 !
5 "#$$
)

#1
)'$
!.
#"
"6
1+

6#
2 !

""
"
#!
#

>1
1#!
)

)
#!

1!#1#.7+

;

""
"
2'"

)

$$'2!#

'!.
#$$

'"
+

#8!
""
mmnonnpoooq
+
H _`abcdbefg
ab
bfhc
ijkfl
r
sZ
VW
Z
V

Zt
u

Vv

!"#$$ !" " "%%!
%&

'
("
)
*

#%
,

!!"!
&
$ ("

-
$,

."$
"

"! "(

(# /01
(
"# ("" #,
$

"%
$
%

# $

% "

$"
" %$
#&2(# /301
(
0 )"
4 5

$ 6
!
"(

-
$"
.

%%"$
% 7

'
("
8$
$ '"$
9 :
%
"( $.$
4
... (
!; $
$
& <$

("
=$
& >
-
$4 ?"! @4

$ "

@A !.B0AA
( 8$
$ "
"

2!$ %".

"

!"#$$ 7

(

!;
&
. $
$ " !"%
!"

-
$
3 C " .

(
&$

" (

"%;$ & $ .

4 "
4 <!.4
$B" #
%

D *! $

#
. $(%
"

$ &
6!
. ) .

(" #7
$

!!"#
"
6!
. C %"!& "(
E.
:$(%
" )
$
$

#

%""
%
"#B(
F E"#$ ""( "! .
! %&

$
$
GHIJJJK L
L HLMN
O"
(
!.$ &
74

!!%

$($4 $.(&
$
"$
'& "( '""

$
$%"
4 "((%

4 "((%
4 .!"&
4 #"

$

(
$

(".
&
$
%
.
4 $.
$
4 %

"(
%"4
!"%$
4 %"

4 !

4

4 "

4 $
.

" P
"(
& ;$4
7 " <&4
& .

" "(4
!
"4 " %$ "
&

%;

"
.! " %

$4 #"$ "

&
!!"#
4 $%
" " "

%" "(
'& "( '""
4 7

%

!!"#
4 $%
" " "

%" 7

&
'& '"%4 E

$ >"

'"..

" " "
"
$4 $%"4 "((%
4 "((%4 .!"&4 #" "
O"

?"#. '"$
)%" 993F
!!
4
'& 7 !".!& "(&

!!%
"(
& %
.4
%" " !"%$ .
$ ;"7 "
'&
" 7
%
?"#. '"$ )%" 993F
!!

$
'& 7 (& %""!

$(
O
C!!%
+
"
"

%$4 7
" .
"4
!
&. "(
&
$
$
.

4 %"

$ ! (
4 $
"&+

(

$ "

$ %"

$ !

O
'&

#

"

%

%"

'& $.
%

$
!!"!

@ Q"

%"
$ " < '& " $($
&

%;

"
.! " %

$4 #"$ "

&
%
'&
!!"#
4 $%
" " "

%" :(

& . C!!%
%
""

" " $($ /" %" " $($1
&

%;

"
.! " %

$4 #"$ "

&
%
'&
!!"#
4 $%
" " "

%"4
'& .
&
%
""
4

" $
%"4 " $($ " " $($
&
%

%" :
#

'& $%$
" " $($ "
%"
$(
4 C!!%

"
$ " .
'& ("
&
$
%"

4 (
4 !

" $
.

"%
$
7
$
.

%" " !"%$ :(

& . "

C!!%

$
'& %
""
" " $($ /" %" "
$($1
&
%" "$
4

P% '&
!!"#

4 $%
"
" "

%"

$ #"$ O
C!!%

<$ " "
& .
.
. $.$ %

& &
'& " ((%

.
"(

%"$"
R O
!"P%

%".!& 7

!!%
<.
"(
'""
*%!
'"$ /'*'1
$ "$
%
4
'""

*
"
)!%(% E
4
$
'& "( '""
:$

6
?$
4 %$
!
&. "(
<$ (

O

!!%
"

%".!& 7
*
"
$ *"" E"
.

$
*
$
Q
# 6%

"
0 C
$
%
! !

!!
$ &
%
$ !"(

"
E

!!
$
%%"$
% 7

%&+
S
$
%
!
6
?$
(" '"..%
B:$

6#"!.
4
'""
*
"
)!%(% E

$ '*' '

! 33A
/
#

"
%&+
7

T
!
TBB777%""
%
"#B"#.B$!
.
B%"..&2$#"!.B!
2$#
"1,
$
)
"(
'
("
*"$ U
V((%%& S
$
%
! =$
% /*UVS=1
eefgffhgggi R "( F WXYZ[\Z]^_ YZ Z^`[ abc^d
GjLkN
LLl
m Ln LjLo

!
"

!
#

#$

#$

!
&

(
)

$

#

#$

'
$

!%

#$
+
!
)
!

#$

!
$

,-+...

!
/
'

(
)

)

0!
!
0
#
$
#1

2!

)
3

'

'
0 !

%01
2!

$
!
&

'
(
)

4

!%

#$

0
#

$#

!
)

!
"
5
6
7 '
!

14
0!

%
'

898...

!
#

:
'
*$

)

;<;
=

85>>.-
2!

!
)

/%
'
( $

?/(@

+

0!
!
$

#
)

'
$

*

!
/(

+
!
1
0
0
#

/%
'
*'$
0 !
!

1

!

!
#

0!

A

#

+
!

0

$
!0
%
'
0
#
)

!
$

!
#

#

!
89-..
$

'
%
'

2!

$1

%
!
898...
0!

$#

0 !

!
89-..
$

'

!
$"
1 !
#

0!

'

?)
-.B@C
!0

!

#

'
!
#
%

!
89-..
$

'

D
2!

!
$
;<;
;!
855>
!

!

#

'

'

0
#

;<;
;!
DE.

F

0
!
#

)
$1+

$

)
$

$ !
#

'
)
+

)

0

2!

!

0
'

)

#

1
%
'
+

!1 +

+

#

'
G

>
*

'
?3

3
@

$
0A

'
!
#

;

H
1

!
"

8.
*)

!

!
#

7
0 !

0 ?E@
1

!
)
+

$
!

#
!

#1
!

3$%
'

1
!

$
!
$

)

2!
$

$

#

!
$

))

'+

$

#
$$

' 1

$

$

I

$

$

G
+
1

)
'+
$

)

'
!
#
$

!)

88
*

''
!
#
!

1

'
0 !
!
)
"

0 !
!
&

/%
?&/@

!
;
<'

=

/

;!
855J

!
;
<

;

'
$

!
#
#

$
!
/
'

&

'
(
)

1

'
8E
2!

"

!
K
L
)

;
1
<

=

M#

;)

/
?<M=;/@

I

2!

!
#

!

'
$

8N
OPQRP
SR
STU

QVVWXYZU
R[
X
\WQ]^QY_
`UPaQSb
X``]QZXYS
VTX]]
VW\aQS
SR
STU
cWQ]^QY_
dQeQVQRY
X
VU`XPXSU
fX]]
XY^
[UYZU
`]XYg
hX]]

!
G

$
0
2!
0+

!
A!

+
!
$)
1
'

!
1

#
I

!

0

#1
!
;
1+
!

!
$)
!
'

0 !

)
?5@
1

!
;
1i

8J
2!
;

*)
!
#

'

8-
2!

!
!

$

)$

1
'
7

;

*)+

0

#

#

$
0 !
!

)

$

#

!
;$$

+

'
#

!

+
!

)
+

'

!

$

+

+

8
*

!

#$

<'$
;
/

!
;
1 F'

)
0

)

'
'
$

xxyzyy{zzz| J

> jklmnompqr
lm
mqsn
tuvqw
}~

}

"#$

""%

%%
!#

#"%

&

##
!

%!

'()

%
!

%%&*
+
,
-.
/!
)""%

&
""0!
1 ')
%!
1
#"%#
!

1

(

13

(4
+
,

!0%"#

&%%
1
13

567$
(4

!
84 %

&

%!
1
0&!

!

%%&!
!

!0%"#

,
567
&%%

!

1
0!

!
9
!!
"

#"%

(
!0%"#

%

"!!
(

(4
)
!
7)

%%!
:;<
=>?@ ABC
B
A
CBDEB

,
1%

F.$
%

!
G0%"#
$

!
6%
G"#

13

""%

%%
1

#"%!

0
#

)%%
H

!

##

%%
1

!

!
G0%"#

G"#
$
G0%"#

(0

G0

(%!

%

1&

!!

!
!

$
7

7

!!

!
!

"0%
I
,
!0%"
%%

#"%
&

(

7%

(1!0

4"
)

!
%%
""%
1%
7
!

!
%

J

"#$

""%

%%
!#

7
'

""!

"3

&%%

1%

&

#

%!

""
K
)%%
#"0#

!
!

"%

%%
1
!&

&
9

LIKM

1 9N
LJOM

4%

!

!
1

0%

!P%

!
"

%

H!
Q
,
1#!

"%

%
&
%%
N

#
$
0%!
&$

!
!

)

!
#

#
H
!

"%

1
1#!

!

O
R

9
9
9&

#

H!

7

#
"%

#"%
&

""0%$

!0%"

H!

9
9&

#

7

)%%
N

&
%
!3

!

9
%%
1
"%
!

!
!

&
7

7

!

8 "

$

!0%"
%%

!

1#
"3

1
%

%%
%

)7)G
GTU

7#"

G

L7GM

%

!
G0%"#

G"#
$
G0%"#

(0

G0

R

%

0%1%$

!0%"
%%
"

91%
"%

V
,
!0%"
%%
#
$
"0

!

%
%%

%!

0

"0

#

"1%

%!
$
1

%#!
$

%%&
*

M
-#0%

!$
!1

#%
!"!

"1%

L1M
7

"
$

1%!

%!

0

!
!%0$
%%
1

!

4
!

(!

#
*WW
#

S*WW
"#$
N
%!

%!$

!

#
W*WW
#

O*WW
"#

(
!

!
%!$

7
4

"%
7!
QWKWOW$

%
&
""0!
1
/!

)!3#

L
M
,

##!

".

%%
#
0
%
!
1 "

&.

"0!

!%0

!

%%
13

&
$

""%

$
!0%"

LM

#!

7
4

"%
7!

!!
$

7
'

/%!

8
%
#
"
!
%%

%!

0

!
$

!

%

#

1

!#
!

%%
"

!

0

!

hhijiikjjjl Q

V Z[\]^_]`ab
\]
]ac^
defag
Cm
n
<DE
n
Do
<
np
q
<CDB

!
"
#$
%& '() $ * #& )
##!
))

&
+%

%)

!
##&
"#'&* '
,
$'&* '
)
##
#
$ ("

#' $() !##-
%.

/, -$

%'&* '

#
%0
%
#
1*

2&
* '
(&
%(
"3%
($ -
#4(&
4-
+'&* '
(

$
$' $

" -
5#6
'
1*

$7 '
#8
)
"/1##$

% !
#

7 '
#8
)

$
#
%0
%
#
1*
/1## 9
$%
$
%(
#
$
%

#
$/1## 9
$ - (-

$ #
' $-
!
#
/1## 9
$#

$
&
%

$:&
4!
#
!/1##

$ %

$
%!* )
$
# ( ; &!
"# %
)

<=4*#
%/7
!!,%

#0$!

!) %

#'&* '

0
%
#
1*

$,) "
, & )
!!%

#
'$!

&#

& &
$"+>"

6
$?, & '" ==</
1##) %
$
%$ %

)
##" & 6+!6

$
$(6

&
#6$ 7# @6)
& @<A

$6+
6

#B$

C
'" =@AD(

# ) -
&&* $"+) 6+5
%

=
&&*
#!%
$
%&#

()
&&#

)
##
"'-?=/& !
#

$% #% && &
$"+

E % $5
%
) #

$F * #&'
F &
'
(F * #&'
, * F*
7) &)
##
$$ )
#G
"#+

$% #%
#
$
!) H!
&&#
"# () &)
##
#
$$ .$ &
$

$
!
#
"#+
! ;
%

##& 2'$! $

##& -))

"I !
#J
2'

!

$#&

$
"#+
#
%
&& $$
+#%)#
2'
'
' 9
$ "
4!'

2#

$#
%)!&& $"
)$

(
"K$

!
)$

2

+)
&&#
"# $

+
$ 9

#+J ) && $$ * #&'

<
&&*
#!%
$
%&#

(

#&#

$
)
##"
"' $

$
&&* $"+) #

$
F * #&'
F &
'
(F * #&'
, * F*

L
&&*
#!%
$
%&#

()
&&#

)
##"

M

#6

1*+,'8
'!') ,

8 E
6
#N
$
'&#

-)C

###

F)
% 5#'

,+ '?CF5,/ 9
'

!!!#
%
C !H

?CBH/-##" 9
$"+) 6+7) 8FHFO)
##" $&#
+ $
) # ) !)
%
$
%&#

@
&&*
#!%
$
%&#

()
&&#

)
##'&#+-)) P $
#6#

8
1

$)
##& &

,'8

##

*

#

?,8/7) ,8)
##"
*
#
"#
) &I ! * -
A

!"
#$
%& '() $ * #& )
##

) *#
%
! $

$#
%
! $!)

&&* $%
$
%&#

"'&
$ !

$'&

&!)
"I #-) "
#$
%& '

9
$
Q #
!%
$
%
+() $ * #& )
##

) *#
%
! $!)
&&* $%
$
%&#

"'
!
K"
#%
$
%&#

-) & 8
R

#+6
#!
#
D

+%
$
%& '(

+
*
'

#)
H

$)
HH!
$
%

$ ''
$ $

'*

'

#
%!'& *

!)
"I )
##" '&# '
$
S1##6+!6

CF5,& ' 9
'
!CF5,

$8
R

#+0

% '
#

?8R0/)
##" ' &
6

&
#6$ 7# <6)
& <=Q

$6+6

#B$

C
'" ==S

$=D=D

# ) -
&&* $
"+)
"#84F ) $ %

=)

!
%
$
%& '(
P

#8R0(& &
$

"

#
!'

-))
&&* $ #'

+
8R0()
##"
"' $) #

$F * #&'
F &
'
(F * #&'
, * F*
!
&&*
#>&

!

#
&&*
#()
&&#

)
##
"'
&+

6FKEB0
FP!'

=)

!) !6 !
!B
&

+()
&&#

)
## $6*

(6
$

$E

?663EG/

&
"# '

% '
-)) 6+
!'!

&& +-
'&# '
)

&&* $8R0
==

!) !6 !
!B
&

+()
&&#

)
##&*$ &!!
!

) !

&

##

K

#N0

$ $

$

% 9
'
!
$N0
$ $
)
&&* $8R0
=<

!6 !
!B
&

+()
&&#

)
##

##

#&

N0$
! $
)

&&* $&I & !P

#8R0

$

#
bbcdccedddf A!S TUVWXYWZ[\VWW[]X^_`[a
ghijkgkgl
kmgngg

!
"

!
#$
%
&'(%'
'
!

!
)
*
!
%'+&,''%'
'
-

%'!
*

'.
!

!+!!'
/
!
$$
'*#&%
&0

12

'
'
$$
'*
'(
&
3$
'*3$
!4
$$
"
!
!+#3

&
'' &!+&5

!+&!

"+
6
!
4

3
+
3 $
'$'!&
''
""'

'!
"+
7&*

'!4

$

!
$
'$'!
'"

'!
!
8!'(
6
!

$
'$'!

*
"!9&
'' &!+&!
$
!
(+#

7'/'(

+'((

':
'((:!

;2

'
'
$$
'*
'(
3$
'*3$
!4
3$
'*3$
!!+#3
#&
$$
"
!

!!(''/
<9
$
'="

!
!
#!
'
""$
$
'$
&"'*&
':
'((:!

('/
''

'+
!
9$
'="

!&!3!
!
$
'"'/!

3$
'$

!(
'3
&
3 "
+!#&

''(

$

!!+"
!"'"

''

*
!
''(('/':
!

'!!

$$
'*/

>+

&'

(
"

&?"'!

!#

3
&"'
+
'

$$
'*$+#
"

(
"

&'

*

'+ +
:!
/
7$

7/
&

!
@5
!
"

"
'!!!"
'!!
#$
%
&'(%'
'
!

!4
$$
'*5$"
(
"2
!
+

!

5
'(%

('

3'(9

!$'

'A
/
&.!
B
+
+!!'
/
!
$$
'*#&%
&0

C2

'
'
!!+
"'(
#+

$
3 4
$$
"
!
'((
('

"

'

>+

!:'(:/
&
' B
'

*
>+

'3
*

!
!

D;1(
(/
E5

"

'!
"'
+
('
"+

%
&
""$!'

#
'!!+"'((
!
"

'!!
#(
'(
"+3#

"!

$$
'*#&%
&0

F2

'
'
$$
'*
'(
3$
'*3$
!4
3$
'*3$
!!+#3
#&
$$
"
!

"+(''/
<

E'"

G'
3
='

/
&!H*

"

'

8'

3!!
#
$$
'*#&%
&0

#E

*/
&!!
"'('
3'
$$
"
#%
&'(%'
'
!

!
!
#!'/'!

3$
'*3$
!
"EI

'+
'(6
!

$
'$'!+

&
!
E5

!
E9

((
"5

B
'

*
5
#'
5
(E'
$+#
"
3$
'*3!!
"'('
3'%
&'(%'
'
!

!
JK2

'
'
$$
'*
'(
3$
'*3$
!4
3$
'*3$
!!
!'/
!
!'#
3$
'*'
(/
$+!
DLKE

'
((
'3!
"

4+!!'
/
!
$$
'*#&%
&0

!"

''(

$$
"
46
!
$
*33
&#"'
'"'(

3
>+
!"
'
)*
+!+

!
$
'"!!

&
(

!!
#
"'
$'

'$
'="!
9
('

3$
'*3!3
&
"+(+$
*3
"'!
+"
'4

'*

&4'
!+

&!
!

$
!
#$

$$
'*!

$
$
#&9

((
".
*
!
'
JL2

'
'

!'($+#
"
3$
'*3!"+

&4*'$
!
"
+!"
*

'(
"'
('

$$
'*

3$
'*3$
!'!+#3

!'(
!:#+
$
!('

*
/

$$
'*
#&2

.*'$3.$

34
.*'$35
*
"!.
*
!
'
J2

'
'
""$
"'(
3$
'*3!4%
&0

3
&
3

&4
!(

5

5$"
(
"

'!('
2+#
"-'
7!%'!
+"
'43
&#
>+

(

""$
"'(!
D!E#&%
&
("'

'
'(!
D!E/

!
$$
"

'!

$
!
#
$
"
7
9
$$
"

!!'
!$'!
#$

&('

3
"'(

3$
'*3!+
!

""$
"
7!$
"
JJ2

'
'#+

$
3
!!+
"
$$
"
!
$
'*

'("!!

&'"+3!
(!'
6
!
$
'="
'
%
&'(%'
'
%'33+
&,
"

!.
!

"D%,.EKL;:JDB

"5
*
"!E
!!!!
#$

"!

!
#!+#="'
+
%,."

!D!$"

6!'

!!!!3!E9*'$
!
#
!$'!
#('

"'!!
"+

6

'
'%,.!
J2

'
'
!!+
"'(
%

(
"
'(?""+$
"&4
$
'$'!$

7/
&4!'$3

"4
G'
3

!"
$
!$"
(

$
"
!$
'

!%'

'!'($$
'*
!
#"'!
+"
J12

'
'
!!+
"'(
%

(
"
'(?""+$
"&4
&
3 '6
!

!"
$
!3

!+'$
'="
"'!
+"
'!
#
$

'

$
"#&*'$
4'
*'$
H!!+""!!'
!

!4
'"'!'%
&'(
%'
'

[[\]\\^]]]_ @'(F MNOPQRPSTUOPPTVQWXYTZ
`abcd`d`e
df`g``

!
"
#$
%& '

!
) !
!*
&

+,-
&&#

-
##&
+
##$ . #&'

! ,
#
$
%"

#' $/ . #&'
0'&
1 2/013& )+4

&
#)$ 56

&

8
!' 4%

1 278413& )+4

&
#)$ 5659
$! -
##" ## $
-

!!
- ' !!
##

& ! $"+-

)+)

#! #

!"
#$
%& ',-
&&#

-
##&
+-
&&&

!!%

#'%

!
;<##- &
"# =
, #
' $=
,

$ = $ %

-
##" & - 8# / &
'

$
$

$>. $
)

+/ &
'
!?
#-9 . 9

$
$

# - =
&&. $"+- )+@
%

$8# /
A

+"
#$
%& ',
$' =

$! !#=+ '-
##"
&&. $"+- 8#

$

$"+- $ . #& ,-
!

!- 8# /

$1 )- !
BC'&. '
&#

&&.
#,-
&&#

-
##

-

##=
' ,! -+$

- =

-
##
" #
$=-

$.
# &
-!
. #
B5

+"
#$
%& ',- $ . #& -
##&
+
##=

$ = ! ,
#
$
%"

#' $

! ,=
=

'
! , =
&
+!

$
##-
&&&
=

$ = !
B6

!"
#$
%& ',- $ . #& -
##&
+- = '"
'
! !- @#9"

D#
$

- $ . #&'
"
%#
$
- @#9"

.

B!

#'
& $

&&.
#!'&. '
&#

,=-

&&#
"# ,-
&&#

-
##
"'$
# $&
"#
=
,

$ =
$ ,& &
$"+
% $.#
%
,=---
##"
"' $- #

$/ . #&'

/ &
'
,/ . #&'
9 . /.
! . =

$
&&.
#7-
$+-
##

#+E - F
%

$&& $ =

$=
!
# >
#!- + '

#+'
+ G
&
#

!- &
"# =
,

$ = + ',

-

&E
%$=

' = #
,

##
%&
%
#
," &
'&,&
#'

#!&& #

,"
D=
.
#.

$

!-
&&

+ . - && $$ . #&'

@!! !- && $$ . #&'
,
%

%

$&
#

G
'
-
##"
"' $! . =

$
&&.
#"+- #

$/ . #&'
/ &
'
,/ . #&'
9 . /.
,

$- 8# / &
'

BB"
#$
%& '

,-
&&#

-
##

%

-

!
## G
$&
"#
'&. '

#
$
%"

#' $,- &
"# =
#
, = #
,&
"# =
. , = #

#,$
"#
$ - D
'"#

$ $
$&
&
&#
'"# =-
- &
"#%-!=
+

$H
'

BI7-
&&#

-
##$ $

'
!
##&
"#=
, =

$ # !
#
$ $ . - &J

=-- 8# / &
'

$
$7- '
'
'
'
=$--
##" 6C! !

#+

$C!
!' -

&
"#
#+!
#+<##&
"#=

$ = !
# -
##" &.$ $
'
'
'6CH!H=$ &
. $

# - =
&&. $"+- 8# / 9

$ -
##
"

$

## $=-

&
"#
#+
'

B'
& $

"
#$
%& '

,=-- . ' !,-
&&#

-
##

%

-

!
&.
! + '=-$
"# $ - D
'"#

##&
"#! . -
!

!-
8# / &
'

$1 )- !
B:1 ?+$

-
##"
'
F'
'6ICHCC!
&

$ $"+- 1 / &
'

B;4

-# ' # .

-
##" #= -

##&
$ # .

'' $
#+$=

'*- =
"
D!#=& .

.
#. =##" G
$
BA9
&
F $
%;C& G

$.$

#&
%
#

IC> #
' $=
-
##"
$!

+

.+,

# - =
&&. $"+- 8# / -
$ %
"

%
#
' $

' !'- )+,
> #
' $K
<&&#

-
##"
"' $!
-

. !

-

$# #
' $=

"# =
'
+"
$! #
' $=
!
#

.
#
"#
I57-
&&#

-
##&.$
&

%

=
. !
##)1/#

$
& $#
'

I67- #

$
& &#

!
##&
D=
+

$
& 4

/2L4/3

$)''

+1
# /2)1/3#-
##
" & &
$"+
#
$L

$
& <-

$-
##"
"' $- )+! . =

$
&&.
#
[[\]\\^]]]_ ;!A MNOPQRPSTUOPPTVQWXYTZ
`abcd`d`e
df`g``

! !"

"#$%!&!
!

!#%

'("!)%%!*'&!
!"!#+
#%#!(),
#
"-

"%'' (!#./0
##11+2!
"!
"-3-"
4
!
!%!'"'!
5
#
"-!6%+
!
!(+,
7+"0##(#(!(8!
! +!9:9
;

%!

! !"

"#$%!&!
!

!#%

(!!
#!('#
"-

"#$''"

"#$"(
'"#5'"#-"-

"##5+ <=8>!
!)

%!

! !"

"#$%!(!
!

!#%

(!

!! %!

!,)"!<=8>
#"-%%!"!)(!
!

!")

"
"-!"!!(%!'##"-
!%!
('2#
"-?
0 "4
!
.+5
("-
! ##5"'!$%!(!
!

!#%

#+"(##%! 5"%!55!'"#5'"

#!!$#(!)
2$"(<=8>!@5
!"!
!(

! !"#"!!(!(
!(!#"''!##"(%!#!"#"(

! !"#$"'
5("-+2!
"!$ %!#5%)!#'"!%!
A!'+5"(,%!"!#!'"?
0 "4
!"5!
B'

!'
!
,%!C=%<=8>1

! !"#DEF+5
("-
! ##5"'!$%!(!
!

!#%

!"!" 55

,
''!
+
!-!! !")%%!0,$)%'%#%

$ " 5 $

'!+!)!!"%!0,"(%!(!
!

!%!

"!
#%!'##'"#5'"%!=%<=8>1

! !"#"(5

! +5#! !"%!<=8>-(!'##"-

! !"#
'!("%!#5%#(!3-"
4
!"5!%!"!#!'"?
0 "4
!"5!$)%'%!
%!
0,G#01
- HC85%<=8>1

! !"#DEF0""-!"5
"(!
!

! !
,!'!
"-%!

#
%!<=8>

! !"#B'" $)%'%)5
("!!(+!
'

!"%!!@5!(

! !"#%!#5+A!'

!,(!
!

!"I$%!-!! !"#%

#!@5!%!(!
!

!'"#5'+%%!=%<=8>1

! !"#"(
%!85%<=8>1

! !"#"()

(!! +5#! !" %!0,#

"!#%!%!!"!
'##1""),#%

"#$##5"'!
! #"(J'"#5'"B#'

!"I%!<=8>

! !"#!'%!&!
!

!K#+
,''5
,%!+5
("-#+,),0L*0L$

(!(""! ''"

")%#-"-!
!(!#""(+','
!
! !"#!
!)!("(

!(+,%!0,?"-"!!1"(!'"#5'
%!<=8>1

! !"#$"(

(!(%%!0,%#+"!(

"!'!##,

#$%!(!
!

!)

+!!@5!(
!"!"-(!'##"-'"#5'"-!! !")%%!0,"(<=8>"(%!)#!'

,)%

#"((#"(
!-5
"#
#!(+,<=8>%!'"#5'"%!=%<=8>1

! !"#"(%!85%<=8>1

! !"#$)%'%
""!
!"#%

!'(!
!

!G#+
,'"#5'#
A!'

! !"#1"%!!
!"%!0,%#"+"!(%!
!@5!(

#%!<=8>

! !"#+,%! !&!
!

!%#'

!!('"#5'"#
A!'+5
("-#$%!
&!
!

!#%

%
!%!-%
,%!0,##%!%!<=8>

! !"#$%
!#+"(!
!#!($"(#%

%
!
"5%!+
-"#!-("-%!'"#5'"""'"-%!<=8>
! !"#*%#!"!0"("#
!('!("
%!&!
!

!
'!!("-)%'"#5'"#(!
!

!"
%!0,' !"'"-'"#5'"%!<=8>

! !"#B%!C)%-!##'"'!
D#(#'5##!()%%!0,IM4 !"(!(+,%!
"""-"(N5#"-0 ##""
>!+5,O9$9:9;P
QQ
RSTUVRVRW
VXRYRR
260'-0"
205'-0"
138'-0"
28' Drive
28' Drive
35' Drive
28' Drive
28' Drive
28' Drive
30' Drive
30' Drive
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
880'-0"

ZERO CURB
FACE
8 Dock High Doors
2 Grade Level Ramps2 Trailer Stalls 18 Dock High Doors
4 Grade Level Ramps4 Trailer Stalls
M a g n o l i a A v e n u e
E l C a m i n o A v e n u e
S h e r b o n S t .
46'-7"
88'-4"
38'-3"
78'-0"
64'-0"
138'-0"
10'-0"
9'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
9'-0"
25'-0"
68'-1"
Slope Slope
Slope Slope 6'-0"
10'-0"
50'-0"
50'-0"
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE

ZERO CURB FACE

ZERO CURB FACE
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
28'-0"
Fire
Lane
R25'
Fire Lane
R50'
R25'
R50'
Fire Lane
175'-3"
41'-3"
120'-0" COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 25'-2"120'-0" 3'-0"
12' x 45' Trailer Stall12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall12' x 45' Trailer Stall12' x 45' Trailer Stall12' x 45' Trailer Stall

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
125'-4" 25'-0"
205'-2"
3'-0"
120'-0" 18'-0"
40'-0"40'-0"
45'-3"
55'-4"
20'-0"
1'-0"
2'-0"
2'-6"
41'-0"41'-0"
45'-0"
12'-0"
45'-0" 12'-0"
45'-0" 12'-0"45'-0"
12'-0"
12-C
15 8
10 35
8 10 6
2 3
9 4
10 7
10 9
3 8
5 10
10 15
10 10
10 10
10 9
3 14
10 10
10 4
26 7
5 12
11 10
6 5555
55 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10'-0" 10'-0"
2 7 9 14
17 10
4 23
28 22
19 10 2
22 28
13A
13A
Suite
1D
Suite
1C
Suite
1B
Suite
1A
Suite
2B
Suite
2A
Bldg. 1 Footprint
231,370 s.f.

Bldg. 2
Footprint
90,150 s.f.
1335 Magnolia
Avenue 1385 Magnolia Avenue
1 1
1 1
13 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
6 6
6 6
7 7
7 7
9 9
9 10
10 22A
14 14A
14 14
1414
14 17
17 17
11 16
16 16
16 8
15 15
8 21
15 8
8 5
5 16
5 11
5 13
5 13
13 16
2 6
6 6
2 11
4 1111
4 21
11 20
20 21
11 11
14 22A
7 4
22 4
4 23
23 23
26A
26 25A
25 27
8 8
4 1818
14B
14C
22 22
22 22
2222
22 13A
10 20
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

N o v e m b e r 0 3 , 2 0 2 2
A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3 O c t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2
A 1.0
1 3 3 5/1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a Ave. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R N o r t h
Site Plan Summary
Building 1Site Coverage .46Net Site Area (15.991 Acres) Ground Floor 231,370 s.f.
696,557 s.f.

Mezzanine 7,000 s.f.

S c a l e : 1 " = 6 0 ' - 0 "
0 60 120 180 240
Building 2
Ground Floor 90,150 s.f.Mezzanine 6,000 s.f.

Total Bldg 1 Area 238,370 s.f.Total Bldg 2 Area 96,150 s.f.

Total Ground Floor Area (Two Buildings) 321,520 s.f.Total Mezzanine Area (Two Buildings) 13,000 s.f.Total Area (Two Buildings, Including Mezzanines) 334,520 s.f.Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) .48Parking Building 1 Office (14,000 s.f. at 1/250 s.f.) 56 SpacesWarehouse (224,370 s.f. at 1/1,000 s.f) 225 Spaces Building 1 Parking Required 281 Spaces
Provided Parking (1.22 Spaces per 1,000 s.f.) 289 Spaces Parking Building 2
Office (12,000 s.f. at 1/250 s.f.) 48 SpacesWarehouse (84,150 s.f. at 1/1,000 s.f) 85 Spaces Building 2 Parking Required 133 Spaces
Provided Parking (1.42 Spaces per 1,000 s.f.) 137 Spaces Planning Information
(Refer to Civil for additional information)
Applicable Code: Corona Municipal Code
The City of Corona Industrial Design Guidelines
Municipal Code Zone: BP (Business Park)
Specific Plan: Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (SP01-002) General Plan Land Use: MU (Mixed Use 2, Commercial/Industrial) Bldg. Setbacks: 10' On Magnolia Avenue
10' On Flood Control Channel15' On El Camino Avenue

C O N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N
91 F R E E W A Y
MAGNOLIA AVE.

MAGNOLIA AVE.

E 6TH ST.

S PROMENADE AVE.

EL CAMINO AVE.
15 F R E E W A Y
RIMPAU AVE.

FULLERTON AVE.

ONTARIO AVE.

N o r t h
ADA Parking Stalls (9' x 18' Min.) 7 Spaces
Standard Parking Stalls (9' x 20') 282 Spaces
ADA Parking Stalls (9' x 18' Min.) 5 Spaces
Standard Parking Stalls (9' x 20') 120 Spaces
Contact: Nick NguyenTelephone: 951 734 2130Corona, CA 928811880 Compton Avenue, Suite 100KWC Engineering CIVIL:

Contact: Steve MartinezTelephone: 714 617 8600Tustin, California 9278015661 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 150BASTIEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

ARCHITECT:

Project Directory
Contact: Eric Freeman/Charles LambTelephone: 714 680 0417Fullerton, CA 92832305 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 222EMERALD DESIGN LANDSCAPE:
[email protected]
[email protected]@emeraldladesign.com Sheet List
ArchitecturalLandscapeCivil
Conceptual Site PlanFloor Plan Building 1 & 2Roof Plan Building 1 & 2Enlarged Floor/Mezzanine Plans A3.1
Materials Color Board
A1.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A5.0
--
Irvine, California 92602
--
Contact: Tracy ZinnTelephone: 714 505 63603200 El Camino Real, Suite 100T & B PLANNING, INC.

PLANNER:
[email protected]
-
DEVELOPER:

Contact: Jeremy MapeOffice: 949 720 0369Newport Beach, California 92660500 Newport Center Drive, Suite [email protected] REALCO, LLC PROPERTY OWNERS:
15 8'-0" High Steel Tube Fence and Accessible Pedestrian Gate, Where Occurs1617 ADA Compliant Concrete Ramp with 1-1/2" Metal Tube Guardrail and Handrail Rolling Gate (Heavy Mesh Opaque Screening) with Fire Department Knox Box -
A-2.2
18 Painted Metal Guard Rail19 Dashed Line Denotes 10'-0" Landscape Setback20 Monument Sign by Other21 12'-0" High Concrete Tilt-Up Screen Wall and Accessible Pedestrian Gate22 New Private Fire Hydrant with protective bollards per local Fire Authority codes. Public Hydrant at "22A" see Civil Drawings.23 Shaded Employee Break Area w/ Owner Provided Bench & Umbrella see Landscape Drawings.24 Enhanced Concrete (Sawcut & Stained) Paving 12 Bike "Long Term" Bicycle Rack. 3 Bike "Short Term" Bicycle Rack at "25A" 6 Bike "Long Term" Bicycle Rack. 2 Bike "Short Term" Bicycle Rack at "26A" 252627 Painted in White Arrow Sign for Right-In and Right-Out Only Access28 25'-0" Inside and 50'-0" Outside Radius Fire Lane Access Approximate Extent of Office Area (Refer to Tenant Improvement Plans).

Concrete Stairs and Painted Metal Railings - Typ.Green Shaded Area Represents Landscaping Treatment - Typ. , See Legend Ramp Up to Dock Level w/ 12' x 14' Stl. Panel Sectional Service Grade Door (Roll-Up) - Typ. 12567
3'-0" x 7'-0" Hollow Metal Fire Department Access Door at 125' max 89 10
Key Notes
11 4
121314
Concrete Tilt-Up Trash Enclosure With Reinforced Metal Deck Swinging Door Per CityOf Corona Standard Property Line per civil drawings , See Legend Typ.
3 9' x 10' Steel Panel Sectional Door (Roll-Up), Painted to Match adjacent Wall - Typ.

Dashed 10'-0" Symbol Denotes for Future Dock High Door Location On-Site, Concrete Walk (48" Wide Minimum) Natural Color with Medium Broom Finish To Public Walk. Public sidewalk at "13A" - Refer to Civil Accessible Parking with Accessible Path to Entry - Typ.

Standard Parking Space: 9'- 0" x 20'- 0". Compact Parking Space: 8'-6" x 17'-0" at "14A". 2'-0" long Overhang Parking at "14B". 2'-6" Overhang Parking at "14C". 12'-0" X 45'-0" Trailer Stall
Decorative Colored Concrete with Exposed Aggregate at Main Building EntrancesProposed Transformer Location Screened by Landscape A3.0 -
-
A3.4
SITE
-
Exterior Elevations Building 2Exterior Elevations Building 1Enlarged Entry Elevations, Canopy Detail and Wall Section S
Vicinity Map
NTS
Setback LineExisting Property LinePotential Interior Wall Location Legend
Solid Dark Hatch Represents Landscape AreaDiagonal Hatch Represents Painted StripingSolid Light Hatch Represents On-Site HardscapeDark Hatch Represents Enhanced Hardscape LC1 Overall Landscape Concept Plan Buildings 1 and 2
LC2 -
-
LC3
--
LC4
--
Building Height: 42'-0 (Building 1)Clear Height: 32'-0" Clear at First Column at Loading DockOccupancy: B-Office/S-WarehouseLandscape Area Required: Total Parking Stalls > 50 = 10.0% = 69,656 s.f.

SHERBON STREET

CHANNEL

DRAINAGE

STORMWATER
Fencing Plan
-
A1.1
Proposed Building
Project Perimeter Fencing
Construction Type: III-B
41'-0 (Building 2)
Contact: Jeremy MapeOffice: 949 720 0369Newport Beach, California 92660500 Newport Center Drive, Suite [email protected]/o Western Realco, LLCB9 MAGNOLIA OWNERS, LLC Landscape Concept Building 1
LC5LC6
K.O. Knockout Opening
C-1 Title SheetC-2 -
-
C-3 -C-4 -
Preliminary Grading PlanPreliminary Utility PlanSite Section Details DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
Landscape Area Provided: 97,601 s.f.Gross Site Area (16.576 Acres) 722,065 s.f.

X X X X X Existing Chainlink Fencing
-
A1.4 Site Photometric
-
A3.2
Illustrative Exterior Elevations Building 1
-
A3.3
Illustrative Exterior Elevations Building 2
-
A2.3 - Plan Check Notes Bldg 1 & 2
PP2022-0003 APN 107-030-022

1. Vehicle parking overhang shall not block walkways.

General Notes
Compact Parking Stalls (8'-6' x 17') 12 Spaces (12 Allowable) Total Project Parking Required
Total Project Parking Provided
414 Spaces426 Spaces
LC7 - Building 1 Screening ElevationLC8 - Building 2 Screening Elevation and Section Landscape Concept Building 1 Landscape Concept Building 1 Landscape Concept Building 2Landscape Concept Building 2 A1.2 - Site Details

F R E E W A Y
91 F R E E W A Y
15 24
24 19
19 S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
260'
52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 48' A AB B
C CD D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
50' 50' 50' 50' 60' 60'
231,370 s.f.

Bldg. 1 Footprint
UP
765432
1098
111
12 15 1617 18 19 2021 22 23 24
FE
HW
880'
320'
UP
14 SLOPED WALL W/ CABLE RAIL
FE
Slope Slope
14 13
25 26
131
23456789
101112
52' 52' 49'
A AB B
C CD D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 90,150 s.f. Bldg. 2 Footprint
45' 50' 50' 60'
205'
465'
Slope Slope UP 76543
1098
111
12 15 16 17 1819 2021 2223 24
FE
HW
UP
14 SLOPED WALL W/ CABLE RAIL
FE
14 13
25 26
131
23456789
101112
2 1 2 3 4 5 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 1:06 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A2.0_FloorPlansBldg.1&2.dwg A p r i l 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 2.0
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R N o r t h

C O N C E P T U A L O V E R A L L F L O O R P L A N
0 40 80 120 160
S c a l e : 1 " = 40 ' - 0 "

REFER TO SHEET
A2.2 FOR TENANT

IMPROVEMENT
PLANS

REFER TO SHEET
A2.2 FOR TENANT

IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
Suite 2B
51,260 sf.

Suite 2A
38,890 sf.

Suite 1A
78,132 sf.

Suite 1B
40,476 sf.

Suite 1C
40,476 sf.

Suite 1D
72,286 sf.

Future
Future

POTENTIAL

FUTURE OFFICE

ONE STORY
Future
Future
DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
6'-0"

OPEN OFFICE
151
6'-0"
OFFICE
UNISEX
156
UNISEX
157
COFFEE
158 WOMEN
163
MEN
162
JAN
161
LOBBY
150
OFFICE 155
152
HALL
153
UP
765432
1098
111
12 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24
FE
HW
UP
14 SLOPED WALL W/ CABLE RAIL
FE
STAIR #1
160
AV
CLOSET
159
Slope

CONFERENCE
154
STAIR #2
260
14 13
25 26
131
2 3
4 56789
101112
1 2 3
AB
1 2 3

OPEN OFFICE
201 DN
260
STAIR #2
DN
141516171819
2021222324
FE
131
2 3
4 56789
101112
STAIR #1
160
Slope
FE
UNISEX
202
COFFEE
203
765432
1098
111
12 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24
14 13
25 26
2526
AB
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 1:10 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A2.0_FloorPlansBldg.1&2.dwg F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 A pr i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 2.2
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R N o r t h

C O N C E P T U A L E N L A R G E D F L O O R P L A N
S c a l e : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
0 8' 16' 24' 32'
2'
4'
6'

P O T E N T I A L O F F I C E G R O U N D
F L O O R P L A N (3,570 S.F.)

P O T E N T I A L O F F I C E S E C O N D
F L O O R P L A N (3,299 S.F.)
( 7, 0 0 0 S. F. T O T A L G R O U N D F L O O R O F F I C E M A X. B L D G. 1) (6, 0 0 0 S. F. T O T A L G R O U N D F L O O R O F F I C E M A X. B L D G. 2 ) (7, 0 0 0 S. F. T O T A L M E Z Z A N I N E O F F I C E M A X. B L D G. 1) (6, 0 0 0 S. F. T O T A L M E Z Z A N I N E O F F I C E M A X. B L D G. 2 ) DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
A-ABOV-1-2
A-ADA-1 A-CLNG-DRHD-1 A-CLNG-GRID-1 A-CLNG-HT-1 A-CLNG-LITE-1 A-CLNG-OPEN-1 A-CLNG-PATT-1 A-CLNG-SOFF-1 A-DIM-1 A-DOOR-1 A-DOOR-IDEN-1 A ELEV XA-ANNO-1 A-COLS-1 A-COLS-BRAC-1 A-DEMO-1 A-DIM192-1 A-DIM96-1 A-DIM48-1 A-DIMTI-1 A-BLOW-1 A-CLNG-DIM-1 A-CLNG-MECH-1 A-CSWK-1 A-CSWK-ABV-1 1A-CLNG-1 A-CLNG-ANNO-1 A-CLNG-BLKHD-1 A-CLNG-DIM48-1 A-CLNG-DIM96-1 A-COLS-X A-DIM-X A-ANNO-X A-CLNG-MISC-1 A-DATUM-X A-BOLLARD-1 A-CLNG-DEMO-1 A-BIKE-RACK-1 A-ABOV-1 38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
37'-1" A.F.F.

High Ridge
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
Angle Wall - Refer to Plan
37'-1" A.F.F.

High Ridge
12-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Wall
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel 32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
Angle Wall - Refer to Plan
36'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
- 4'- 0"
Dock Yard
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
3 8 10 14 7 10 14 1 8
15 24
15 10A 21 26 20 B
A3.2
1 10 14 10 9 7 8 3
15 15
24 15 10 20 5 7 20 21 10A
Typ. Typ.

Typ.
3 7 5 10 9
15 15
24 19 18
Beyond
10A 28 1
A
A3.2
1 North Elevation
3 East Elevation
2 South Elevation (Magnolia Avenue)
4 West Elevation (El Camino Avenue)
A3.2
D
C
A3.2
Key Plan
2 A3.0
1 A3.0
4 A3.0
3 Bldg.#1 A3.0
A3.2
E
1 2
3 23 6 4
6 6
6 6 6 25 6
6 4
2 4
1 1
11 11 25 25 11 11
26 26 26
7 8 8 8
7 8 7 8
26 26 26
10 10
16 16
16 16
10 10 10
2 12 2
Typ.
12 Typ.
12 Typ.
12 Typ.
13 13
14 14
14 14
14 14
14 14
15 15
15 24
24 24 24
18 18 17 9
18 9 7
9 7 9
9 7 9
2 20
21 17
9 24 20 23 24
27 22
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
Reversed Hand
Beyond
Beyond
2 Beyond
10A
10 5
5 5
5 9
24 28 28
28 28
29 29
6 6
16 22 23
23 6 6 4 23 6 6 6
Typ.

Typ.

Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:04 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A3.0_ExtElevsBldg.1.dwg F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3 F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 3.0
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R Clear Anodized, Front Glazed, Aluminum Mullion System w/ Insulated Reflective Blue Glass - Typ.
( Areas Indicate Spandrel Conditions)
9'-0" High Medium Stile Entry Doors - Typ.
3'x7' Steel Hollow Metal Fire Access Man Door and Frame Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface
3/4" Reveal - Typ.

Panel Joint - Typ.
9'x10' Steel Panel Sectional Dock Door w/ Viewport (Located 48" Above Exterior Grade). Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface.
12'x14' Steel Panel Sectional Grade Door w/ Viewport Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface
Concrete Guardrail Walls With Painted Metal Handrails
Elevation Notes
Concrete Tilt-up Panels with Joints and Reveals as Indicated. Painted.Typical External Down Spout and Overflow Scupper Painted
to Match Adjacent Wall
Dashed Line Represents Roof Line at Backside of Parapet Light Fixture (Final Locations To Be Determined w/ Photometric) Proposed Location for Building/Tenant Identification SignageProposed Address Location (16" Letters) Paint Legend 1
2 345
6 78
9 11
121316
1718192021 Possible Mechanical Unit Location mounted on Mechanical Platform (+/-60" Tall Shown Dashed)
22 2'-0" High x 3'-0" Wide Crenellation w/3/4" Panel Relief - Painted. 15 10 C
A 3.2
Paint Color #1
Warehouse Clerestory Windows Steel Tube Fence and Rolling Gates (All Gates to have Corresponding Knox Box as Required by Fire Dept.) 8'-0" High Parapet Return Over Roof where Parapet Step Occurs
36" Return at changes of elevations of more than 24" in height 24" Return at changes of elevations of less than 24" in height Painted Freestanding Concrete Panel (Secured to Building as Required). See Section
2324 2" Wide Reveal - Painted25
D
A 3.2
Painted Concrete Tilt-Up, Architectural Accent Panel Design Element (Per Plans)
14 Concrete RampConcrete Stair and Landing with Painted Metal Railing Paint Color #3
Paint Color #2 Paint Color #4WhiteDEW380
Gray PearlDEC795
DE6232Abstract White Storm Cloud
DE6362
Metal Clad Canopy: Bent Aluminum Composite Panel Clear AnodizeFinish - Typ. See Sheet A 3.2 for Additional Information.Detail & Section D A 3.2
E
A 3.2
Dashed Line Indicates Interior Roof Drain and Overflow Drain.Drains Are to be Connected Directly to The Storm Drain System 2627 3'-0"x7'-0" High Accessible Pedestrian Gate
(Origami White - SW7636)
(Essential Gray - SW6002)(Downing Slate - SW2819) 28 Knockout Opening for Future Office Expansion Concrete Tilt-Up Trash Enclosure With Reinforced Metal Deck Swinging Door Per City Of Corona Standard
29 1'-0" High x 3'-0" Wide Crenellation at 10A
C o n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n s B l d g. # 1 0 30' 60' 90' 120 S c a l e : 1" = 30'-0"
Bldg.#2
N o r t h
1 DPR2022-0008 PP2022-0003 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
37'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
41'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
36'-0" A.F.F.

High Ridge
39'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
Angle Wall - Refer to Plan
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
37'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
36'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
Angle Wall - Refer to Plan Angle Wall - Refer to Plan
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
36'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct. 32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
- 4'-0"
Dock Yard
41'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
37'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
36'-0" A.F.F.

High Ridge
Angle Wall - Refer to Plan
12'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Wall
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
Property Line
37'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
41'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
39'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O. Struct.
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. Panel
B
A3.2
8 15
10A 21 5
Typ.
10 14 7 1 10 9 7 8
15 15
24 15
24 14 21 10A
Beyond
Typ.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:10 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A3.1_ExtElevsBldg.2.dwg M a y 0 5 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3 F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 3.1
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R C o n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n s B l d g. # 2 0 30' 60' 90' 120 S c a l e : 1" = 30'-0"
Clear Anodized, Front Glazed, Aluminum Mullion System w/ Insulated Reflective Blue Glass - Typ.
( Areas Indicate Spandrel Conditions)
9'-0" High Medium Stile Entry Doors - Typ.
3'x7' Steel Hollow Metal Fire Access Man Door and Frame Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface
3/4" Reveal - Typ.

Panel Joint - Typ.
9'x10' Steel Panel Sectional Dock Door w/ Viewport (Located 48" Above Exterior Grade). Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface.
12'x14' Steel Panel Sectional Grade Door w/ Viewport Painted to Match Adjacent Wall Surface
Concrete Guardrail Walls With Painted Metal Handrails
Elevation Notes
Concrete Tilt-up Panels with Joints and Reveals as Indicated. Painted.Typical External Down Spout and Overflow Scupper Painted
to Match Adjacent Wall
Dashed Line Represents Roof Line at Backside of Parapet Light Fixture (Final Locations To Be Determined w/ Photometric) Proposed Location for Building/Tenant Identification SignageProposed Address Location (16" Letters) Paint Legend 1
2 345
6 78
9 11
121316
1718192021 Possible Mechanical Unit Location mounted on Mechanical Platform (+/-60" Tall Shown Dashed)
22 2'-0" High x 3'-0" Wide Crenellation w/3/4" Panel Relief - Painted. 15 10 C
A 3.2
Paint Color #1
Warehouse Clerestory Windows Steel Tube Fence and Rolling Gates (All Gates to have Corresponding Knox Box as Required by Fire Dept.) 8'-0" High Parapet Return Over Roof where Parapet Step Occurs
36" Return at changes of elevations of more than 24" in height 24" Return at changes of elevations of less than 24" in height Painted Freestanding Concrete Panel (Secured to Building as Required). See Section
2324 2" Wide Reveal - Painted25
D
A 3.2
Painted Concrete Tilt-Up, Architectural Accent Panel Design Element (Per Plans)
14 Concrete RampConcrete Stair and Landing with Painted Metal Railing Paint Color #3
Paint Color #2 Paint Color #4WhiteDEW380
Gray PearlDEC795
DE6232Abstract White Storm Cloud
DE6362
Metal Clad Canopy: Bent Aluminum Composite Panel Clear AnodizeFinish - Typ. See Sheet A 3.2 for Additional Information.Detail & Section D A 3.2
E
A 3.2
Dashed Line Indicates Interior Roof Drain and Overflow Drain.Drains Are to be Connected Directly to The Storm Drain System 2627 3'-0"x7'-0" High Accessible Pedestrian Gate
(Origami White - SW7636)
(Essential Gray - SW6002)(Downing Slate - SW2819) 28 Knockout Opening for Future Office Expansion Concrete Tilt-Up Trash Enclosure With Reinforced Metal Deck Swinging Door Per City Of Corona Standard
29 1'-0" High x 3'-0" Wide Crenellation at 10A
A
A3.2
A3.2
D
C
A3.2
Key Plan
5 North Elevation
7 East Elevation
6 South Elevation (Magnolia Avenue)
8 West Elevation
6 A3.1
5 A3.1
8 Bldg.#1 Bldg.#2 A3.1
7 A3.1
N o r t h
A3.2
E
1 2
3 6 6 4
6 1
6 6
4 2 2
3 1
26 26
8 7
26 6 26
16 16
16 14
14 15
15 24
24 24 24
15 10A
24 10
22 9 7
9 19
2 20
21 3
17 13 11 11 25
8 7 8 10
7 12
Typ.
10 14 14
18 9 18
23 6 7 9
23 6 16
26 5
14 15
7 27
2 2
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
Beyond
18 10A
7 15
5 5 5
3 6
18 9
9 28
28 1 29
1 23
23 Typ.

Typ.

Typ.
23 23
Typ.

Typ.

Typ. Typ.

DPR2022-0008 PP2022-0003 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
F.F.

A
+42'-0" A.F.F.
9'-0"

CEILING HEIGHT
T.O.P.
2nd Level - 15'-0" A.F.F.
10'-0"

CEILING HEIGHT
1/4" PER FT. MIN.

SLOPE
6'-0" 9'-0" 3'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
24'-0" A.F.F.

Top of 2nd Floor Window
Bottom of 2nd Floor Window
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Panel
4'-0" 9'-0"
SLOPE
6'-0" 5'-0"6-09-0
+0'-0" A.F.F.
10'-6" A.F.F.

Bottom of Canopy
F.F.
9'-0"
1 +42'-0" A.F.F.
9'-0"

CEILING HEIGHT
T.O.P.
10'-0"

CEILING HEIGHT
6'-0" 9'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
24'-0" A.F.F.

Top of 2nd Floor Window
Bottom of 2nd Floor Window
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Panel
SLOPE
3'-0" 4'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0"9-06-0
+0'-0" A.F.F.
2nd Level - 15'-0" A.F.F.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:06 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A3.0_ExtElevsBldg.1.dwg F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 3.2
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R .125 ALUMINUM WITH CUSTOM COLOR PREMIUM KYNAR FINISH TO MATCH WINDOW MULLION FINISH, OVER 5 8" POLYSTYRENE OVER ICE AND WATERSHIELD UNDERLAYMENT, OVER 1/2" EXT. PLYWOOD. RUN UNDERLAYMENT OVER TOP AND FRONT SIDES. NOTE: ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE FINISH: REYNOBOND
A.F.F.
+10'-6"
1/4" PER FT. MIN.

NOTE:

ALL DISSIMILAR METALS TO BE ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER

W/ CONTINUOUS NEOPRENE TAPE OR APPROVED EQUAL
MATERIAL.

PANEL BEYOND
3/8"
1/2" WIDE X 5/8" DRIP JOINT W/ SILICONE SEALANT OVER
BACKER ROD, TYP. WHERE INDICATED. SEE EXT. ELEV.S AND
REFLECTED CLG. PLAN FOR VERTICAL SEAM LOCATIONS.

SEALANT: DOW CORNING 795 COLOR: NATURAL STONE (VERIFYSEALANT AND LOCATIONS VIA SUBMITTAL, SAMPLES) ANODIZED ALUM. STOREFRONTSYSTEMSEALANT & BACKER

ROD AT GLAZING

FRAMING PER
STRUCT'L PLANS.

TURN ALUM PANEL UP AT

FACE OF PANEL

SEALANT & BACKER
ROD

DRIP ANGLE - DIVERTER TOWARDS

SIDES OF CANOPY TO DIRECT WATER,SHED AWAY FROM FRONT
LIGHT FIXTURE PER ELECT.
& ARCH. CEILING PLAN
HOLD SEALANTBACK 1/8" AT
JOINTS
DRIP
2'-8"
6" 1'-0" 3'-0"3'-0" 5'-0" SLOPE 6" AT LOW POINT

FACE OF
CONC.

PANEL
CONT. 1"x 1" BREAKMETAL CLOSURE CHANNEL

TO MATCH CANOPY
PROVIDE DRIPHOLES AT 24" OC
24 GA. CONT. PAN FLASHING UNDER
SHIMS & O/ TOP OF CANOPY. PRIME AND

PAINT TO MATCH CANOPY
A.F.F.
+15'-0"
6"
6'-0"
1'-6"
A.F.F.
+9'-0"
S c a l e : 1 1/2" = 1 ' - 0 "
C Entrance Canopy Section 0 1.5' 3' 4.5' 6' 7.5" D Wall Section At Entry 42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.P
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O.Struct.
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
A Enlarged North Elevation @ Entry
S c a l e : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 "
0 8' 16' 24' 32'
2'
4'
6' B Enlarged West Elevation @ Entry
38'-0" A.F.F.T.O.Parapet
38'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
40'-0" A.F.F.T.O.Parapet
E Wall Section
C
-
-
E
-
D
C
-
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Panel
42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.P
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O.Struct.
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Panel
DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
- 4'- 0"
Dock Yard
1 North Elevation
3 East Elevation
2 South Elevation (Magnolia Avenue)
4 West Elevation (El Camino Avenue)
Key Plan
2 A3.0
1 A3.0
4 A3.0
3 Bldg.#1 A3.0
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:08 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A3.0_ExtElevsBldg.1.dwg M a y 0 6 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 3.3
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R I l l u s t r a t i v e
Bldg.#2
N o r t h
DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
C o n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n s B l d g. # 1
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:12 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A3.1_ExtElevsBldg.2.dwg M a y 0 6 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 3.4
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R Key Plan
5 North Elevation
7 East Elevation
6 South Elevation (Magnolia Avenue)
8 West Elevation
6 A3.1
5 A3.1
8 Bldg.#1 Bldg.#2 A3.1
7 A3.1
N o r t h
DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
C o n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n s B l d g. # 2
I l l u s t r a t i v e
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
4 1 6 7 2
5 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 3
40'-0" A.F.F.T.O.Parapet
4 2 1
2 4
1 2
4 4
4 6 7
4 1 2 4 4
4 4
1 6 7 7
40'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
1 1 2 3 4
6 Clear Anodized Aluminum Storefront Frame Arcadia AC-1 GlazingMedium Performance Reflective Insulated at Office 7 Canopy SystemPainted to Match Clear Anodized Aluminum (Metallic) 5 Paint Color #1WhiteDEW380
Partial West Elevation (El Camino Avenue)
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

PLOT DATE: March 27, 2023 2:14 PM P:\19015 WR Magnolia - Corona\Design\Arch\Dwgs\A5.0_MaterialsColorBoard.dwg F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 5.0
1 3 3 5 / 1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 42'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Parapet
32'-0" A.F.F.

B.O.Struct.
0'-0" (Ref.)
Ground Floor
32'-0" A.F.F.

T.O.Panel
Paint Color #2 DE6232Abstract White
(Origami White)(SW7636)
Paint Color #3Gray PearlDEC795
(Essential Gray)(SW6002)
Paint Color #4Storm CloudDE6362
(Downing Slate)(SW2819)
2 2
Typ.

DPR2022-0008 BAI # 19015
S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE

NO PARKING

NO PARKING
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE M a g n o l i a A v e n u e
E l C a m i n o A v e n u e
S h e r b o n S t
.

Slope Slope
Slope Slope
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE
NO

PARKING

ZERO CURB
FACE

ZERO CURB FACE

ZERO CURB FACE
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
175'-3"
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 125'-4" 25'-0" 205'-2"
12-C
15 8
10 35
8 10 6
2 3
9 4
10 7
10 9
3 8
5 10
10 15
10 10
10 10
10 9
3 14
10 10
10 4
26 7
5 12
11 10
6 5555
55 8'-0"
± 50'-0" MAX.
8'-0"
± 50'-0" MAX.
2 2
9 A1.2
Suite
1D
Suite
1C
Suite
1B
Suite
1A
Suite
2A
Suite
2B
Bldg. 1 Footprint
231,370 s.f.

Bldg. 2
Footprint
90,150 s.f.
2 A1.2
16 A1.2
12 A1.2
12 A1.2
4 -
*
1 RETAINING WALL

AT SIDEWALK

PER CIVIL PLAN
XXX
10 A1.2
1 2
Drawings, specifications and other documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's consultants are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and theArchitect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shallretain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2
A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 2 3 F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 3
A 1.1
1 3 3 5/1 3 8 5 M a g n o l i a A v e. C o r o n a , C a l i f o r n i a

M A G N O L I A A V E N U E B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 1 6
A3.1
2 A3.0
N o r t h S c a l e : 1 " = 6 0 ' - 0 "
0 60 120 180 240

F E N C I N G P L A N
2 New 9'- 0" High Concrete Masonry Unit Screen
Wall - Color to be determind
Existing 6'- 0" High Chain Link Fence To Remain
Protect - In - Place

X X X X X
Fence Key
New 8'- 0" High Steel Tube Fence. 2" X 4" Steel
Tube Frame With 3/4" Steel Tube Pickets

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
Motorized Telescoping Rolling Gate With FireDepartment Approved Knox Box 1 2
ElevationPlan
7'-0"
NOTES:

SUB CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ENGINEERINGCALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT

FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CITY PLAN CHECK FORPERMIT

GATE SECTIONS MAY BE OF DIFFERENT LENGTHSGATE SECTIONS IF NEED - PAINTEDGATE SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST 90 MPH WINDS & EXPOSURE "C"

TOP GATE SUPPORT

DECORATIVE

TUBULAR

STEEL GATE WITH

HEAVY MESH
SCREENING. SEE
*EXPANDED MESH
DETAIL
1 8'-0" High Steel Tube Fence Scale: N.T.S.
3/4" STEEL

PICKETS
4" x STEEL TUBE
FRAME
8'-0"
2 Rolling Gate Plan & Elevation Scale: N.T.S.

CONCRETE TILT-UP

SCREEN WALL
(BEYOND) - REFER

GATE TO SITE PLAN
8'-0"

SECTION

EQUAL EQUAL

REFER TO SITE PLAN

PLANTER AREA WITH

CONCRETE CURBS

PER PLANS

TUBULAR STEEL

FENCE - REFER

TO SITE PLAN
3 -
GUARDED PADLOCK HASP w/

APPROVED FIRE

DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX
1 -
1 -
New 8'- 0" High 4" Steel Tube Frame With 3/4"
Steel Tube Pickets Fence. To be Painted Black.
2 -
1 DPR2022-0008 PP2022-0003 BAI # 19015
(8'-0") 1'-6"

SUB CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE

ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS ANDDRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEWPRIOR TO CITY PLAN CHECK FORPERMIT NOTE:
32"
6"
MAX
3 Rolling Gate Section @ Fence
SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0"
D01F02BF-2018

GATE SUPPORT WHERE

OCCURS), REFER TO SITE PLAN

TOP GATE SUPPORT WITH ROLLERS

ATTACHED TO CONCRETE SCREEN WALL
(WHEN ADJACENT TO SCREEN WALL)
4" x 4" x 3/16" TOP TUBE SECTION

SUPPORTING STEEL TUBESECTION - PAINTED

TUBULAR STEEL FENCE WHERE

OCCURS, REFER TO SITE PLAN
1" x 1" x 16GA. STEEL TUBE AT 4"
O.C. -TYP. - PAINTED
EXPANSION JOINT AT CURB.

CONTINUE CONC. BASE

FOOTING ACROSS DRIVE,

ALIGNING WITH CURB FACE
CONC. CURB AND
LANDSCAPE AREA PERPLANS. SEE ALSO CIVILPLANS.

TRACK ANCHOR BY IRON CONTRACTOR

STEEL TRACK

DOUBLE STEEL ROLLERS AT END OF
GATE SECTION - TYP.
4" x 6" x 3/16" THK BOTTOM STEEL TUBE

SECTION - PAINTED
Asterisk Denotes Length Of Expanded Mesh At
Gate And On Steel Tube Fence to Screen Building *
#1 Dock
4 New Steel Tube Fence Elevation @ Property Line
High Dense Expanded Mesh At Gates *
And Steel Tube Fence As Shown
4 -
9'-0" HIGH SPLITFACE
PILASTER w/DECORATIVE

CONCRETE CAP

PAINTED STEEL

TUBE FENCE
1 14
A1.2
5 Section @ Fence & Drainage Channel
5 -
*
See 4 & 5
1 See 4 & 5
1 Existing chain-link fence to
be removed within
landscape setback on east
property line. Coordinate w/
flood control channel gate.

RETAINING WALL

AT SIDEWALK

PER CIVIL PLAN

RETAINING WALL

AT SIDEWALK

PER CIVIL PLAN
New 12'- 0" High Concrete Tilt-Up Screen Wall
Paint To Match Building
Enhanced Landscape Vegetation at Front of
Parking Stalls this area only.
3 5
-
3 S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 3
Drawing No
Rev. 7 (11-17-22)
22-010

MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
November 17th, 2022
1335/1385 Magnolia Ave.

Corona, CA 92880
All ideas, plans or arrangements indicated
on this drawing are copyrighted and owned
by Sign Industries Incorporated and shall not
be reproduced, used by or disclosed to any
persons, firm or corporation for any purpose
whatsoever without written permission of
Sign Industries Incorporated.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER
Overview, Sign Size & Parameters
Sign Styles
Type Styles & Logos, Lighting, Colors
Approval Process
Prohibited Signs & General Sign Standards
Fabrication and Installation
Site Plan and Sign Locations / Corner Cut-off details
Building 1 Elevations
Building 2 Elevations
Tenant Sign Specifications (TS)
Monument Sign - Single-faced (M.1)
Monument Sign - Double-faced (M.2 & M.3)
Lighting Details
Directional Sign (D)
Building Address Numbers

Page 1 ends

2 3
3 4
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13

TABL E O F CO NT ENTS

DEVELOPER / LANDLORD

ARCHITECT

SIGN CONSULTANT
2101 Carrillo Privado
Ontario, CA 91761
Tel: (909) 930-0303 Fax: (909) 930-0308
Western Realco, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive - Suite 630
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 720-3788 Fax: (949) 720-3790
Bastien & Associates, Inc.
15661 Red Hill Avenue - Suite 150
Tustin, CA 92780
Tel: (714) 617-8600 Fax: (714) 617-8671

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

OVERVIEW
The overview of this criteria is to assist the Landlord/Tenant and City relationship.

The Landlord will be responsible to:
a. Provide base building design and construction guidelines information requested by Tenant's sign design consultant.
b. Review, comment and approve Tenant sign submission.

In return, the Tenant will be responsible for:

Design, fabrication, permitting and installation of signs, including any structural support and electrical service and any special installation requiring addition or modification to the shell building approved by the Landlord and the City Community Development Director.

Maintenance of the Sign
The Tenant shall employ professional sign fabricators and installers approved by the Landlord who are well qualified in the techniques and procedures required to implement the sign design concept. The Tenant will abide by all provisions, guidelines and criteria contained within the "Magnolia Avenue Business Center" Sign Program.

Only those sign types provided for and specifically approved by the Landlord in Tenant’s sign submission documents will be allowed. The Landlord may, at their discretion and at the Tenant's expense and after proper notice to Tenant, replace or remove any sign that is installed without Landlord's written consent, or that is not executed in conformance with the approved submission. Tenant shall furnish the Landlord with a copy of all sign fabrication and installation permits prior to installation along with insurance.

Note: It will be the responsibility of the Tenant to satisfactorily repair and patch holes of their storefront sign area should the Tenant vacate these premises. 1 SIGN SIZE & PARAMETERS
(A) Monument Sign (M.1)
One (1) 5'-0" high maximum, single-faced free-standing sign, externally illuminated with uplighting with Project Identification Name and building address range only. (B) Project Entry Monument Sign (M.2 - M.3)
Two (2) 5'-0" high maximum, double-faced free-standing signs, externally illuminated with uplighting with Project Identification Name and building address range only. (C) Directional Sign (D.1 - D.4)
Four (4) 5' - 0" high double-faced free-standing non-illuminated directional signs with building address and arrow directions and located within business complex. Copy not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of area.
(D) Wall Signs
Each Tenant is allowed one (1) primary storefront ID sign above their main entrance.

Tenants with building elevations facing multiple exposures such as public streets and/or internal parking lots, streets or alleyways, may incorporate signage at each elevation, as approved by Landlord and the City Community Development Director.

The maximum surface area of signs affixed to a building shall be based upon the Tenant’s available wall area as shown on the elevation pages within this sign program.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
• The maximum sign area shall be calculated as (1.25) square foot of sign area per each lineal foot of building or suite frontage up to two hundred (200) square feet maximum. • The maximum total sign width of a building wall sign shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the width of the Tenant's leased building frontage. • Sign area shall be calculated by creating a rectangle around the combined letters in each line, then multiplying height by width. The logo sign area shall be calculated separately in the same manner.
*SEE PAGE 2 FOR TENANT SIGN OPTIONS AND DETAILS
Logo
Logo

TENANT NAME

WITH TWO STACKED LINES
H
(3'-0" max)
H
(3'-0" max)
H
W
W
W
W
W (not to exceed 75% of leased building face)
W (not to exceed 75% of leased building face)

SIGN AREA BASED ON
H x W=
(W: WIDTH)
(H: HEIGHT)
SIGN STYLES - OPTION ‘A’
Note that specific locations and surrounding architectural treatments can limit the maximum sign height and length, which may differ from the general guidelines proposed. The Landlord reserves the right to approve or reject any proposed sign on the basis of the size and placement.

Acceptable sign styles may include:

1. Creative use of standard LED illuminated channel letters.

SIGN STYLES - OPTION ‘B’
Note that specific locations and surrounding architectural treatments can limit the maximum sign height and length, which may differ from the general guidelines proposed. The Landlord reserves the right to approve or reject any proposed sign on the basis of the size and placement.

Acceptable sign styles may include:

1. Creative use of fabricated non-illuminated aluminum letters. 5"

EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR CONCRETE WALL

0.080 FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTER
3/4" (Min.) TRIM-CAP SECURED W/ #8 TEK-SCREW
3/8”Ø x 2 3/4" KWIK BOLT TZ CARBON STEEL
(MIN. 4 PER LETTER)
https://www.hilti.com/anchor-fasteners/expansion-anchors/r6281

0.125” THICK TRANSLUCENT ACRYLIC FACE

ON/OFF SWITCH FOR SIGN SERVICE ACCESS
1/2”Ø CONDUIT W/ LOW VOLTAGE WIRING

ALUMINUM TRANSFORMER BOX

POWER SUPPLY FOR LED LIGHTING
PRIMARY POWER TO SIGN LOCATION BY G.C.

LED LIGHT MODULES FOR ILLUMINATION
1/4”Ø WEEP HOLE AT BOTTOM OF EACH LETTER
TYP. CHANNEL LETTER SECTION THRU 1 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
ALL COMPONENTS TO BE ® APPROVED
3" ½"

EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR CONCRETE WALL

FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTER
3/8”Ø x 2 3/4" KWIK BOLT TZ CARBON STEEL
WITH 1/2" LONG SPACERS (MIN. 4 PER LETTER)
https://www.hilti.com/anchor-fasteners/expansion-anchors/r6281 RECESSED DIAPHRAGM w/NUTSERT

TACK WELD TO INSIDE OF LETTER

COUNTERSUNK MACHINE SCREW
1/4”Ø WEEP HOLE AT BOTTOM OF EACH LETTER
TYP. NON-ILLUMINATED LETTER SECTION THRU 2 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER 2
3 TYPE STYLES
The use of distinctive type styles is encouraged for all Tenant signs.

Sign lettering may be combined with other graphics and or dimensional elements denoting the type of business. The Tenant should identify trademark protected type and marks in their sign submission to assist the Landlord and the City Community Development Director in the review process.

LIGHTING
The following are allowed:

1. Neon or Light Emitting Diodes (LED's)
COLORS
The following guidelines are for selecting colors of Tenant's signing. The project and the individual building facade will consist of a variety of colors and materials.

Signs may incorporate regionally and nationally recognized logo colors.

Sign colors should be selected to provide sufficient contrast against building background colors.

Sign colors should be compatible with and complement building background colors.

Sign colors should provide variety, sophistication and excitement.

APPROVAL PROCESS
At least thirty (30) days prior to the Landlord's scheduled delivery of the premises, Tenant shall provide the following information to the Landlord for review.

Note: This information is separate from sign approval submission and store design and drawing submissions, and will be used to begin the sign design process.

Store Name;
Store Logo (in color with colors identified);
Store interior materials, colors and finishes.

Insurance of sign installer
Allowing reasonable time for Landlord's review and Tenant's revision of submission in advance of sign fabrication, Tenant shall submit for Landlord's approval, emailed fully dimensioned shop drawings of the Tenant's sign.

Shop drawings shall include at least the following: Tenant's entire building facade elevation, showing the proposed sign in color, in a scaled drawing.

Storefront (partial building) elevation showing the location, size, color, construction and installation details of the Tenant's proposed sign. Typical "section-though" letter and/or sign panel showing the dimensioned projection of the letter or panel face and the illumination method.

Color and material samples together with a photograph (if possible) of a similar installation.

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the sign submission, the Landlord will approve, as noted, or disapprove with comments the Tenant's sign design. Tenant must respond to the Landlord's comments and re-submit within fourteen (14) calendar days, and repeat this process until all sign design, fabrication and installation issues are resolved to the Landlord's satisfaction.

Upon receipt of final sign approval, Tenant may submit the proposed sign to the governing agency for review for consistency with the Sign Program and the required fabrication and installation permits.

Tenants are required to provide one (1) set of the Landlord’s approved drawings to the City of Corona Community Development Director when submitting for building permits.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
4 PROHIBITED SIGNS & GENERAL SIGN STANDARDS

1. A sign that consists of only an unadorned rectangular cabinet signs with translucent or opaque faces.

2. Banners shall be permitted on a temporary basis, in conformance with the provisions of the City of Corona Municipal Code Section 17.74.080.

3. No signs blocking doors or fire escapes will be permitted.

4. Gold leaf treatments on windows, box signs and exposed neon window displays without Landlord's written approval.

Note: Approval is at Landlord’s, and the City Community Development Director’s discretion.

Off the shelf signs are discouraged.

5. Exposed junction boxes, wires, plug in wires on window signs, transformers, lamps, tubing, conduits, raceways or neon crossovers of any type will not be permitted.

6. Signs using trim-cap retainers that do not match the color of the letter and logo returns will not be permitted.

7. Pre-manufactured signs, such as franchise signs that have not been modified to meet these criteria will be permitted.

8. Paper, cardboard, or Styrofoam signs, stickers, or decals hung around or behind storefronts will not be permitted. (Except those required by governmental agencies)

9. Exposed fasteners will not be permitted, unless decorative fasteners are essential to the sign design concept.

10. Simulated materials such as wood grained plastic laminates or wall coverings will not be permitted.

11. Flashing, oscillating, animated lights or other moving sign components will not be permitted.

12. Rooftop signs or signs projecting above roof lines or parapets will not be permitted.

13. Signs on mansard roofs or equipment screens will not be permitted.

14. Advertising or promotional signs on parked vehicles will not be permitted.

15. Sign company decals in full view (limit to one placement only) will not be permitted.

16. Painted signs will not be permitted.

17. Portable and A-frame signs will not be permitted.

18. Wind-activated and balloon signs will not be permitted.

19. Outdoor advertising structures (billboards) will not be permitted.

20. Signs on awnings or awning valences are not permitted unless approved by Landlord.

21. Those signs prohibited within the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (SP01-002).

FABRICATION
The Tenant must insure that his sign fabricator and installer understand their responsibilities before they begin the sign fabrication.

The Tenant's sign contractor is responsible for the following:

1. Signs must be fabricated of durable appropriate weather resistant materials complementary to the base building materials.

2. Dissimilar metals used in sign fabrication shall be separated with non-conductive gaskets to avoid electrolysis. Additionally stainless steel fasteners shall be used to attach dissimilar metals.

3. Threaded rods, Tapcon screws or anchor bolts shall be used to mount sign letters which are held off the background panel. Angle clips attached to letter sides will NOT be permitted.

4. Colors, materials, finishes shall exactly match those submitted to and approved by the Landlord or the Association.

5. Visible welds and seams shall be ground smooth and filled with auto body compound before painting.

6. No fasteners, rivets, screws or other attachment devise shall be visible from any public vantage point.

7. Finished metal surfaces shall be free from canning and warping. All sign finishes shall be free of dust, orange peel, drips and runs and shall have a uniform surface conforming to the highest industry standards.

INSTALLATION
The Tenant's sign installer will provide the following:

1. Obtain all required sign permits from the City of Corona, California and deliver copies to the Landlord before installing the sign(s).

2. Keep a Landlord approved set of sign drawings on site when installing the sign(s).

3. Warrant the sign(s) against latent defects in materials and workmanship for a minimum of one (1) year.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER

SITE PLAN
5A
N
SCALE: 1" = 180' - 0"
Vicinity Map
= TENANT WALL SIGN
= MONUMENT SIGN
= DIRECTIONAL SIGN
TS
M
D
1163' - 0"

PROPERTY FRONTAGE
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
D.3
D.1
D.2
D.4
M.2
M.3
M.1
1018' - 0" PROPERTY FRONTAGE

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER

SITE PLAN
(CORNER CUT-OFF DETAILS)
5B
N
SCALE: 1" = 25' - 0"
30' CORNER CUT-OFF AREA
(VISIBILITY/SETBACK TRIANGLE)

PER CITY OF CORONA

MUNICIPAL CODE
30' CORNER CUT-OFF AREA
(VISIBILITY/SETBACK TRIANGLE)
30' CORNER CUT-OFF AREA
(VISIBILITY/SETBACK TRIANGLE)

PER CITY OF CORONA

MUNICIPAL CODE
30' CORNER CUT-OFF AREA
(VISIBILITY/SETBACK TRIANGLE)

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
5' - 0"
5' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
CURB
CURB
CURB
29' - 0"
16' - 10"
24' - 0"
12' - 0"
10' - 8"
8' - 6"
M.1 M.2 M.3
BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS
6A
WEST ELEVATION (facing El Camino Ave.) 1 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0" EAST ELEVATION (facing Bldg. 2) 2 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1D)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1B)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1C)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1A)
ALL PROPOSED SIGN AREAS = 3' - 0" x 21' - 0"
= 63 SQ. FT.

TS TS TS TS

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
880' - 0"
BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS
MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER 6B
NORTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"
SOUTH ELEVATION (facing Magnolia Ave.) 4 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1D)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 1A)
TS
TS
ALL PROPOSED SIGN AREAS = 3' - 0" x 21' - 0"
= 63 SQ. FT.

ALL ADDRESS NUMBERS = 24" HIGH NUMBERS

ADDRESS LOCATION
BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS
MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER 7
WEST ELEVATION (facing Bldg. 1) 1 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"
EAST ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"
NORTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"SOUTH ELEVATION (facing Magnolia Ave.) 4 SCALE: 1" = 80' - 0"

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 2B)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 2A)

PROPOSED SIGN
(Suite 2A)
TS TS

TS ADDRESS LOCATION
ALL PROPOSED SIGN AREAS = 3' - 0" x 21' - 0"
= 63 SQ. FT.

ALL ADDRESS NUMBERS = 24" HIGH NUMBERS

TENANT SIGN SPECIFICATIONS

TENANT NAME
21' - 0" Max.
3' - 0"Max.

FRONT VIEW 1 NOT TO SCALE
OPTION ‘A’
5" deep fabricated internally illuminated
aluminum channel letters.

Faces to be acrylic.

Trim cap and returns to be per client’s colors.

Illumination to be LED’s.

OPTION ‘B’
3" deep fabricated non-illuminated aluminum
channel letters. Max. Sign Area = 63 sq. ft.

TYP. CHANNEL LETTER SECTION THRU 2 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
3" ½"
TYP. NON-ILLUMINATED LETTER SECTION THRU 3 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE OPTION ‘A’ OPTION ‘B’
TS

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
Qty: One (1)
single-faced monument sign
Sign Area = 60 sq. ft.

MONUMENT SIGN (M.1)
9 18" 9' - 0" 18"
11' - 0" 8"
12' - 0" 14" 3' - 0"
FRONT ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"SIDE ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"

ADDRESS RANGES TO BE
1/2" THICK FLAT CUT OUT

ALUMINUM PAINTED MATTHEWS
“DARK BRONZE” #41313SP
WITH A SATIN FINISH.

FABRICATED ALUMINUM

COLUMNS PAINTED
PAINT #2 WITH A MED.

TEXCOTE FINISH.

NON-ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM
CABINET PAINTED PAINT #1
(TOP SECTION) AND PAINT #4
(BOTTOM SECTION) WITH A MED.

TEXCOTE FINISH.

PROJECT ID TO BE 1" DEEP

FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTERS
PAINTED MATTHEWS “SIGNAL JET BLACK”
#41306SP WITH A SATIN FINISH.
1335 - 1385 MAGNOLIA AVENUE
9 ⅜" 8" 3" 5" 4" 4"
3' - 6"
5' - 0"
(2) LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE INSTALLED BY
SIGN INDUSTRIES, INC. AND 3FT. FROM SIGN FACE.

SEE FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR DETAILS.
3" SQ. TUBE WIREWAY FOR LIGHTS
BY SIGN INDUSTRIES.
18"
UPLIGHTING ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS:

AT 120V FOR EACH FIXTURE = 18 WATTS & .15 AMPS.

TOTAL AMPS FOR THIS SIGN @ 120V = .30 AMPS.

AT 277V FOR EACH FIXTURE = 18 WATTS & .065 AMPS.

TOTAL AMPS FOR THIS SIGN @ 277V = .13 AMPS.

ONE (1) 20 AMP CIRCUIT REQUIRED FOR THIS SIGN.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER
1335 - 1385 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
Qty: Two (2)
double-faced monument signs
Sign Area = 60 sq. ft.

MONUMENT SIGN (M.2 - M.3)
10 18" 9' - 0" 18"
11' - 0" 8"
12' - 0" 14" 3' - 0"
FRONT ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"SIDE ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"

ADDRESS RANGES TO BE
1/2" THICK FLAT CUT OUT

ALUMINUM PAINTED MATTHEWS
“DARK BRONZE” #41313SP
WITH A SATIN FINISH.

FABRICATED ALUMINUM

COLUMNS PAINTED
PAINT #2 WITH A MED.

TEXCOTE FINISH.

NON-ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM
CABINET PAINTED PAINT #1
(TOP SECTION) AND PAINT #4
(BOTTOM SECTION) WITH A MED.

TEXCOTE FINISH.

PROJECT ID TO BE 1" DEEP

FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTERS
PAINTED MATTHEWS “SIGNAL JET BLACK”
#41306SP WITH A SATIN FINISH.
9 ⅜" 8" 3" 5" 4" 4"
3' - 6"
5' - 0"
(2) LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE INSTALLED BY
SIGN INDUSTRIES, INC. AND 3FT. FROM SIGN FACE.

SEE FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR DETAILS.
3" SQ. TUBE WIREWAY FOR LIGHTS
BY SIGN INDUSTRIES.
18"
UPLIGHTING ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS:

AT 120V FOR EACH FIXTURE = 18 WATTS & .15 AMPS.

TOTAL AMPS FOR THIS SIGN @ 120V = .30 AMPS.

AT 277V FOR EACH FIXTURE = 18 WATTS & .065 AMPS.

TOTAL AMPS FOR THIS SIGN @ 277V = .13 AMPS.

ONE (1) 20 AMP CIRCUIT REQUIRED FOR THIS SIGN.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
1335 - 1385 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

LIGHTING DETAILS
MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER 11A
11B

LIGHTING DETAILS

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
6"
Suite 1A
1335
Suite 1B
Suite 1C
Suite 1D

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
12A

SIDE - A
SIDE ‘A’ 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"SIDE VIEW 2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0" 3M 680-85 Black reflective vinyl letters.

Background painted Paint #1.
3M 680-85 Black reflective vinyl
cut address numbers.

Background painted Paint #3
6" deep fabricated non-illuminated aluminum
cabinet painted to match building colors
on each section..
3M 680-10 White reflective vinyl
cut copy & arrow.

Background painted Paint #4
6" deep fabricated aluminum base,
painted Paint #2
4" deep fabricated aluminum reveal,
painted Paint #2
18"Ø concrete footing
Qty: Four (4)
Sign Area = 10.5 sq. ft.
(Copy Area not to exceed 25% of Sign Area)
D

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
3' - 6"
22" 3' - 0"
5' - 0"
2"

ARROW DIRECTIONS FOR EACH SIGN
TO BE VERIFIED BY CLIENT.

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
12B
D

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
Suite 1A
Suite 2A
Suite 1A
Suite 2A
Suite 1B
Suite 2B
Suite 1B
Suite 2B
Suite 1C Suite 1C
Suite 1D Suite 1D
MESSAGE SCHEDULE 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

BUSINESS CENTER
D.1
D.3
D.2
D.4
SIGN TO HAVE BLDG. #1

ADDRESS
SIGN TO HAVE BLDG. #2

ADDRESS
SIGN TO HAVE BLDG. #1

ADDRESS
SIGN TO HAVE BLDG. #2

ADDRESS

SIDE - A SIDE - A

ARROW DIRECTIONS FOR EACH SIGN
TO BE VERIFIED BY CLIENT.
1335 1335
1385 1385
FRONT VIEW 1 SCALE: 3/8" = 1' - 0"
ATTACHMENT DETAIL 2 SCALE: 2" = 1' - 0"
24" 24"
Qty: Two (2) Sets Total
One (1) set of each address shown
(see elevation pages for locations)
SPECIFICATIONS:
- 1/2" THICK ALUMINUM NUMBERS.
- NUMBERS TO BE PAINTED SATIN BLACK.
- NUMBERS TO BE STUD MOUNTED TO BUILDING FASCIA
WITH 1/2" LONG SPACERS.
1335
1385
½"
½"
1¾"

EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR CONCRETE WALL
1/2" THICK FLAT CUT OUT ALUMINUM
3/8-16 x 2" LONG THREADED ROD
WITH 1/2" LONG SPACERS
MIN. THREE (3) PER NUMBER.

ROD TO BE MOUNTED INTO

PRE-DRILLED HOLE WITH
HILTI HIT-HY 100 EPOXY

BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS
13 NOTE: ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE ILLUMINATED
PER CITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.

EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY G.C.

MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
• • • •• • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • 314.41'
• • ••• • ••• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • ••• • ••• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • ••• • ••• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • ••• • ••• • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No.78472
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
N
O
PA
RKING
N

O PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

AMBULATO
RY
ADA
VA
N
/
ADA
ST

D / ADA
STD
/ A
DA

FUTURE EVCS

VAN / ADA

STD / ADA

FUTURE EVCS

EVCS ONLY

EVCS ONLY
NO

PARKING EVCS ONLY

EVCS ONLY

FUTURE EVCS

UT F URE
EVCS

FUTURE EVCS

UT F URE EVCS

UF TURE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS

FUTURE FUTURE EVCS EVCS

FUTURE FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS EVCS

FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS
FUT
U
RE
EVCS
F

EVCS UTURE

EVCS ONLY

FUTURE EVCS
EVC
S
ON
LY

EVCS ONLY

ONLY EVCS

EVCS ONLY
O

EVCS NLY ONL EVCSY

EVCS ONLY

ONL EVCSY

ONLY EVCS

EVCS ONLY

AMBULATORY E

ADA VCS ONLY

FUTURE EVCS
FUT
URE
EVCS
FU

TURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS
FU
TU

RE EVCS
FU
T

URE EVCS
FUTUR

E EVCS FUTURE EVCS
FUT

URE EVCS
F
UTUR
E EVCS
FU
T
U

RE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS
FU

TURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS
FU

TURE EVCS
FUTU
RE
EVCS
FU

TURE EVCS
FU
TU

RE EVCS
F
U
T

URE EVCS
F

UTURE EVCS

EVCS ONLY
VAN
NO

PARKING

EVCS ONLY
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS

EVCS ONLY VAN

AMBULATORY ADA
VAN
VAN
NO
PA
R
KI
N
G

FUTURE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS
EVCS
ONLY
FUTUR
E

EVCS VAN / ADA
NO

PARKING

TRANSFORMER
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
12' x 45' Trailer Stall
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

NO PARKING

NO PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

AMBULATORY ADAVAN / A
DA

STD / ADA
S
T

D / ADA

FUTURE EVCS

VAN / ADA

STD / ADA

FUTURE EVCS

EVCS ONLY

EVCS ONLY
NO

PARKING EVCS ONLY

EVCS ONLY

FUTURE EVCS

FU URE TEVCS FUTURE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS

FUTURE FUTURE EVCS EVCS

FUTURE FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS EVCS

FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS FUTURE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS
F
U
T

URE EVCS

EVCS ONLY

FUTURE EVCS
EVC
S ONLY

EVCS ONLY

OEVCS NLY

ONLY EVCS
EVC
S ONLY
EVC
S
ON
LY

EVCS ONLY
E

VCS ONLY ON EVCSLY

ONEVCSLY

OEVCS NLY

EVCS ONLY

AMBULATORY EVC
ADA
S
ON
LY
FUT

URE EVCS
F

EUTURE VCS
FUTU
R
E EVCS

FUTURE EVCS
F

EVCS UTURE

FUTURE EVCS
FUTUR

E EVCS FUTURE EVCS
F
U
T
UR
E
EVC
S

FUTURE EVCS
FU
T
U
RE
EVCS
F

EVCS UTURE
FUT
URE
E
V
C

S FUTURE EVCS
F
U

TURE EVCS

FUTURE EVCS
F

EUTURE VCS
FU

TURE EVCS
FU
T
UR

E EVCS FUTURE EVCS

EVCS ONLY
VAN

NO PARKING

EVCS ONLY
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS
FUTURE
EVCS

EVCS ONLY VAN

AMBULATORY ADA
VAN
VAN
NO
PA
RKI
NG

FUTURE EVCS

EVCS ONLY
F
U

TURE EVCS
VA

N / ADA

NO PARKING

TRANSFORMER

Letter of Intent/Project Description
Project Number DPR 2022-0008
Precise Plan Submittal
Precise Plan Submitted: May 27, 2022
The Applicant (Western Realco) is proposing a Precise Plan to allow for the redevelopment of Planning Area 5 of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan Amendment (SP01-002), located east of El Camino Avenue and northwest of Magnolia Avenue in the City of Corona located in M-4 (Industrial Park Zone) zoning with a MU2 General Plan Designation. Western Realco intends to redevelop the property with two industrial buildings, divisible into several suites and totaling approximately 334,520 square feet (s.f.). The subject site is surrounded by SP-01-02 (FP1) and BP zoning to the north, M2 and C zoning to the east, M2 zoning to the south, and SP-01-02 (FP1 and BP) and M3 zoning to the west. The Corona Magnolia Specific Plan Amendment (SP01-002) was approved in 2002, which designated Planning Area 5 as Business Park. Per Section 4.3.2, Permitted Uses of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan, warehouses and light industrial offices are permitted.

The subject site is located on APN 107-030-022 and is 15.99 acres in size. The Project Applicant proposes a Precise Plan to develop the area with light industrial/warehouse uses. The development is designed to include two buildings. Building 1 will be approximately 238,370 s.f. (231,370 s.f. of ground floor and 7,000 s.f. mezzanine) and Building 2 will be approximately 96,150 s.f. (90,150 s.f. ground floor and 6,000 s.f. mezzanine). Additionally, the Project would include 430 parking spaces (per City standards, 429 spaces are required).

Walls and fencing would occur throughout the project site. New fences used will be a decorative 8-foot high black tube fence. New 12-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen walls will be placed at the entrances of the truck courts for screening purposes. Additionally, an existing 6-foot-high chain link fence will remain protected in place along the project boundary.

Architecture and materials used would be consistent with the City of Corona standards and the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan. The two buildings will be constructed as concrete tilt-up panels which will include parapets, architectural accents, and canopies at entrances. Furthermore, materials used would be aesthetically pleasing shades of grey. The proposed landscaping will enhance the abutting streetscapes and soften views of the buildings from public right of way. Landscaping will occur along the perimeter of the site as well as interior drive aisles and passenger car parking areas. Access to the site would be granted by two (2) driveways along Magnolia Avenue.

City of Corona 1 Environmental Checklist

CITY OF CORONA

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NAME, DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECT:

PP2022-0003: Precise Plan application for the review of a proposed redevelopment project (Magnolia Avenue Business Center Project) that would include two industrial buildings, divisible into several suites and including 334,520 square feet (s.f.) of total building area including ground floor and interior mezzanine space on a 16.6-acre property. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Avenue in the City of Corona, CA, and is located within Planning Area 5 of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (“CMSP”; SP01- 002), which designates the Project site for “Business Park (CMSP-BP)” land uses.

ENTITY OR PERSON UNDERTAKING PROJECT:

B9 Magnolia Owners, LLC
c/o Jeremy Mape
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 630
Newport Beach, CA 92660
The Planning and Housing Commission, having reviewed the initial study of this proposed project and the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Commission, and having heard, at a public meeting of the Commission, 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 Planning and Housing Commission 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: February 7, 2023 _______________________
Chair
City of Corona

Date filed with County Clerk: _______________________
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 2 Environmental Checklist

CITY OF CORONA

INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PROJECT TITLE: Magnolia Avenue Business Center (PP 2022-0003) PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Avenue (APN 107-030-022-3), within Planning Area 5 of the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (“CMSP”; SP01-002). The Project’s location is depicted on Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map. The site’s legal address is 1375 Magnolia Avenue in the City of Corona.

PROJECT PROPONENT: B9 Magnolia Owners, LLC
c/o Jeremy Mape
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 630
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project (herein, “Project”) would entail the redevelopment of the 16.6-acre property (herein, “Project site”) with two warehousing/industrial use buildings (Buildings 1 and 2). The Project includes a discretionary application for a Precise Plan (PP2022-0003), which is required for the review of the Project’s site plan, architecture, engineering, and landscape/hardscape elements. The Project’s conceptual site plan is depicted on Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan. The future tenants of the proposed buildings are unknown at this time. The two buildings are analyzed herein with the reasonable assumption of containing a mixture of light industrial and general warehouse uses. For ease of analysis, Building 1 is analyzed for occupancy with light industrial uses and Building 2 is analyzed for general warehouse uses, although these uses could be mixed among the two buildings dependent on the operating characteristics of the buildings’ future tenants. CEQA requires that analysis be based on reasonable assumptions when future actions, like tenant leasing, is unknown.

Building 1, which is proposed in the western portion of the Project site, would include a total of 231,370 s.f. of floor space and 7,000 s.f. of mezzanine space for a total building area of 238,370 s.f. For purposes of analysis herein, it is assumed that Building 1 would be occupied with industrial park uses. Building 1 is evaluated herein for industrial park uses because the building is designed to be divided into as many as four suites to be occupied by up to four tenants, resulting in smaller suites that are reasonably expected to be occupied by industrial park type uses rather than warehouse uses. Building 1 includes a truck docking court along the eastern side of the building with a total of 22 dock-high doors and four grade-level ramps. In addition, a total of 289 parking spaces are proposed around Building 1.

Building 2, which is proposed in the eastern portion of the Project site, would include 90,150 s.f. of floor area and 6,000 s.f. of mezzanine space for a total building area of 96,150 s.f. For purposes of analysis herein, it is assumed that Building 2 would be occupied with general warehousing uses because Building 2 is designed to be occupied by one or two tenants and a one-tenant building in the size of Building 2 is reasonably expected to be occupied by a general warehouse use. Building 2 includes a truck docking court along the eastern side of the building with a total of 10 dock-high doors and two grade-level ramps. A total of 137 parking spaces are proposed for Building 2, primarily to the north and south of the building.

Architecture and materials used would be consistent with the City of Corona standards and the CMSP. The proposed elevations for Buildings 1 and 2 are depicted on Figure 4, Proposed Elevations – Building 1, and Figure 5, Proposed Elevations – Building 2. As shown, the two buildings would be constructed as concrete tilt-up panels which would include parapets, architectural accents, and canopies at entrances. Building 1 would measure up to

40.0 feet in height (measured at the top of parapet), while Building 2 would measure up to 41.0 feet in height (also measured at the top of parapet). Both buildings are proposed to contain office spaces at the southwest and PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 3 Environmental Checklist
northwest corners of the building, with possible future offices proposed along the central western façade of Building

1. The buildings would be painted a mixture of grey, white, and tan colors. The proposed office spaces at the corners of both buildings would include architectural accent features along with a clear anodized aluminum mullion system with reflective blue glass.

Landscaping proposed as part of the Project would include a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, as shown on Figure 6, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Landscaping is proposed along the Project’s frontage with Magnolia Avenue; along the off-site railroad track to the west; along the southern sides of the buildings; surrounding the passenger vehicle parking areas in the southern portions of the site; along a portion of the northern site boundary to the north of Building 1; and within the landscaped area proposed to the north of Building 2. Due to the presence of contaminated soils on the site, and in conformance with the Project’s Soil Management Plan (“SMP”; MND Technical Appendix F2), the northwestern portions of the Project site would be capped with at least six inches of nonpermeable material, such as concrete or ten (10) inches of clean soil. Figure 6 shows the extent of the soil cap limit. Due to the existing constraints of the soil and obligations pertaining to the approved SMP, landscape areas within the soil cap will be limited to decomposed granite, cobblers and gravel, and low-level shrubbery as feasible.

Trees will be limited in the area of the soil cap, but where ground mounding is permitted, trees are proposed to be planted.

Access to the site would be accommodated by two (2) proposed driveways along Magnolia Avenue. As part of the Project, no improvements are proposed to El Camino Avenue other than removing one existing curb cut and drive approach that crosses over an existing Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way that served former uses on the site. A new nine-foot-tall solid masonry screen wall is proposed along a majority of the site’s western boundary paralleling the off-site BNSF right-of-way.

As part of the Project, Magnolia Avenue along the Project site’s frontage would be improved. Specifically, the Project Applicant would dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Magnolia Avenue. Improvements to Magnolia Avenue would include the construction of a 14-foot-wide median, travel lanes along the northern side of the roadway ranging in width from 46 to 53 feet (with the additional width occurring at the approach to El Camino Avenue), curb and gutter, and a 12-foot-wide landscaped parkway with a curb-adjacent sidewalk. It should be noted that the City of Corona has plans to improve Magnolia Avenue between El Camino Avenue and 1,000 feet east of the private All American Way to widen the existing bridge crossing and to increase the roadway from four to six lanes consistent with the City’s General Plan. As part of the improvements, the City plans to install ADA-compliant sidewalk, curb and gutter, and striping for a shared shoulder and Class III bike lane, medians, and 12-foot-wide travel lanes. The total roadway and bridge width would be increased by approximately 20 feet to approximately 100 feet, curb to curb, throughout the alignment, and right-of-way would vary between 109 and 119 feet wide throughout the alignment. While the proposed Project evaluated herein would be conditioned to require improvements to Magnolia Avenue along the Project site’s frontage, the portions of the planned improvements to Magnolia Avenue that do not front along the Project site, including the proposed bridge, are unrelated to the proposed Project, and impacts associated with the City’s planned road improvements were evaluated separately under a MND document that is separate and independent of the proposed Project (SCH No. 2022030579). This MND does, however, evaluate improvements to BNSF facilities within and adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way near its intersection with El Camino Avenue whether the improvement work is conducted in whole or in part by the Project applicant, the City, or BNSF. The planned improvements would include but not be limited to moving, replacing and/or upgrading to current standards the cross-arms, warning signs and flashers, and associated poles on both sides of the right-of-way and in the center median, installing pavement upgrades under the train tracks that cross the right-of-way, revising pavement markings, and transitioning curb ramps, gutters, sidewalks, and crosswalks.

One 5’-0” high maximum, single-faced free-standing monument sign would be located at the southwest corner of the site near the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Avenue and would be externally illuminated with uplighting. Two project entry 5’-0” high maximum, double-faced free-standing monument signs are proposed at each driveway entrance from Magnolia Avenue. Tenant wall signs also are proposed storefront above the main entrances at the various proposed offices. Four 7’-2” high double-faced free-standing directional signs with building PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 4 Environmental Checklist
address and arrow directions would be installed at each building’s southwest and southeast corner. The Project’s conceptual sign program is depicted on Figure 7, Proposed Sign Program.

Walls and fencing would occur throughout the Project site, as depicted on Figure 8, Conceptual Fence Plan. An existing six-foot-tall chain link fence would remain in place along the site’s northern and eastern boundary. An eight-foot-tall steel tube fence is proposed between the two buildings, and at the entrances to the truck courts in the northern portions of the site. New 12-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen walls are proposed at the southern entrances to the truck courts for the two buildings, which also would include rolling gates with heavy mesh opaque screening to control access into the truck courts. As previously noted, a new nine-foot-tall solid masonry screen wall is proposed along a majority of the site’s western boundary paralleling the off-site BNSF right-of-way.

As part of the Project, the existing structures and improvements on site would be demolished. Grading activities associated with the Project would include 9,786 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 50,809 cy of fill, requiring the import of approximately 41,023 cy of soil material. Project grading would include the removal of existing compacted fill soils at depths between 5.0 and 7.5 feet, and over-excavation would be required to establish the proposed building pads.

The Project’s conceptual grading plan is depicted on Figure 9, Conceptual Grading Plan.

The City of Corona Utilities Department would provide water and sewer service to the proposed Project. Potable water to the site would be provided via proposed on-site water lines that would connect to the existing public 10- inch water main located within Magnolia Avenue. Water service for fire hydrants also would connect to the existing 10-inch water main. The Project also would include internal wastewater lines that connect to the existing 18-inch sewer main located beneath Magnolia Avenue. Proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would entail trenching and exposing existing lines on-site for connection, and installing new lines, and a break-in connection to the existing mainline. No off-site sewer main construction or upsizing would be required to accommodate the Project. However, some construction would occur within Magnolia Avenue to make the necessary infrastructure connections.

Runoff generated on the Project site would be collected by a system of gutters and inlets that will discharge through a storm drain system into the existing 24” RCP that outlet to the Temescal Wash. Runoff would be treated by several proposed Modular Wetland System (MWS) Units, which would be installed beneath the site’s surface near the northern property line.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

Site Description: The existing conditions of the Project site and surrounding areas is depicted on Figure 10, Aerial Photograph. As shown, the 16.6-acre Project site is located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and El Camino Avenue. The site is currently occupied and being used by Anaco-Husky, a pipe fitting manufacturer, and Clow Valve Co., a waterwork product manufacturer. Both Anaco-Husky and Clow Valve Co. are both part of the McWane family of companies. The site currently is used for manufacturing and distribution of fire hydrants, gaskets, clamps, and related metal valves. Approximately 40% of the property is currently used for machining, product finishing and testing, and product storage. The remaining 60% includes asphalt-paved parking areas and unpaved areas. Site improvements consist of four structures, outdoor storage, outdoor parking areas, and exterior landscaping. The site is accessed via two driveways, with one driveway each located along the site’s frontages with El Camino Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. In addition, a gated driveway occurs at the eastern corner of the Project site, and provides maintenance access to the adjacent Temescal Wash, which consists of a concrete-lined drainage channel along the site’s boundary. A portion of the BNSF railroad is adjacent to the Project site’s western border.

Site Surroundings: To the north of the Project site is the Temescal Wash concrete-lined drainage channel, beyond which are several warehouse/manufacturing buildings, with an existing mobile home park community located to the east of El Camino Avenue. To the east of the Project site are the Temescal Wash channel and Magnolia Avenue, beyond which area a variety of warehouse/manufacturing buildings. To the south of the Project site is Magnolia PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 5 Environmental Checklist
Avenue, beyond which are several small warehouse buildings, an animal shelter, and a large open space area (including the former Corona Landfill site and the Temescal Canyon Lake). To the west of the Project site is an existing commercial retail shopping center, beyond which is Interstate 15 (I-15).

GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: The Project site is designated “Mixed Use II: Industrial/Commercial (MU-II)” by the City of Corona 2020-2040 General Plan. The MU-II designation allows for the development of light industrial uses or a mix of industrial and commercial uses. Generally, these should be recognized as “clean” types of industries, typified by light manufacturing, research and development, and ecommerce. A maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 applies within the MU-II designation. Properties to the west, north, and southwest of the Project site are designated by the General Plan for MU-II land uses, while lands to the southeast are designated for “General Industrial (GI)” land uses. (Corona, 2020a, Figure LU-1 and Table LU-1)
The Project site is located within the Planning Area 5 of the CMSP. The Project site is zoned by the CMSP for “Business Park (CMSP-BP)” land uses. The CMSP-BP zoning classification allows for flexibility in the mix of land uses that could include office type development, cleaner light industrial development, warehousing and distribution, and limited commercial that supports and enhances business park uses. Enhanced development standards and buildings of high-quality design ensure that uses within the Business Park districts are of a higher quality than conventional light industrial type development. It should be noted that warehouse and distribution are permitted uses within the BP zone designation of the CMSP. Lands to the north, northeast, and west of the Project site also are located within the CMSP, which classifies lands to the north and northeast for CMSP-BP land uses and classified lands to the west for a mixture of CM-BP, “Commercial (CMSP-C),” “Commercial Office/Business Park Flex (CMSPCO/BP),” and “Office Park (CM-OP)” land uses. (Corona, 2002, p. 4-6 and Figure 4.1) Lands to the north of the CMSP boundaries, as well as lands to the south and southeast of the Project site, are zoned for “Light Manufacturing Zone (M-1)” and “General Manufacturing Zone (M-2).

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.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 6 Environmental Checklist

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
☐ Geologic Problems
☐ Hydrology and Water Quality
☐ Air Quality
☐ Transportation / Traffic
☒ 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
☐ Energy
☐ Wildfire
Date Prepared: February 7, 2024 Prepared By: T&B Planning Contact Person: Rocio Lopez Phone: 951-736-2293

AGENCY DISTRIBUTION UTILITY DISTRIBUTION
(check all that apply)
Responsible Agencies Southern California Edison
Trustee Agencies (CDFG, SLC, CDPR, UC)
X State Clearinghouse (CDFG, USFWS, Redev. Projects)
AQMD
Pechanga
Soboba
WQCB
X Other Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
X Other BNSF (Final MND)
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

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 17 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.

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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 established community ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion:
a. As previously discussed, the Project site is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Mixed Use II:

Industrial/Commercial (MU-II)” land uses, which generally allows for the development of light industrial uses or a mix of industrial and commercial uses, with uses comprising “clean” types of industries, typified by light manufacturing, research and development, and ecommerce (Corona, 2020a, Figure LU-1 and Table LU-1).

The Project site also is located within the boundaries of the CMSP, which establishes zoning regulations for the property. The CMSP zones the Project site for “Business Park (CMSP-BP)” land uses, which allows for flexibility in the mix of land uses that could include office type development, cleaner light industrial development, and limited commercial that supports and enhances business park uses (Corona, 2002, p. 4-6 and Figure 4.1). The Project’s proposed industrial park and warehouse uses are fully consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation of MU-II, and the Project’s land uses also are permitted by right pursuant to the CMSP zoning ordinance. The Project has been designed to comply with all underlying zoning regulations and requirements, including, but not limited to, limitations to maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building height, and setbacks. There are no portions of the Project that would conflict with the site’s CMSP-BP zoning classification, and the Project would not conflict with any other land use plan, policy, or regulation. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. b. As previously shown on Figure 10, the Project site is bordered to the northeast by the Temescal Wash drainage channel, on the west by El Camino Avenue and the BNSF railroad tracks, and to the southeast by Magnolia Avenue. Land uses to the west of the site consist of commercial retail uses, lands to the east consist of light industrial/warehouse uses, and lands to the south and southeast include warehouse buildings, an animal shelter, and large open space area (including the former Corona Landfill and Temescal Canyon Lake). The Project’s proposed industrial park and warehouse uses would not conflict with any of the existing land uses to the west, east, south, or southeast, and impacts would be less than significant. While a majority of lands to the north of the Project site are developed with light industrial/warehouse uses, an existing mobile home park occurs to the north of the Temescal Wash drainage channel, along the eastern side of El Camino Avenue. While the Project’s proposed industrial park and warehouse uses have the potential to conflict with these existing mobile homes, it should be noted that the City’s General Plan designates the mobile home site for “Mixed Use II (MUII)” land uses while the CMSP zoning ordinance classifies this property for “Business Park (CMSP-BP)” land uses. Thus, the existing mobile homes represent a non-conforming land use in a portion of the City targeted for development with industrial/business park land uses. In addition, the analysis provided below under the discussions of impacts to Air Quality demonstrates that the Project would not result in any localized health risk impacts (including cancer and non-cancer related health effects) affecting the existing mobile homes. Similarly, the analysis of the Project’s potential impacts due to noise demonstrates that the Project’s operational- and traffic-related noise levels would not adversely affect any sensitive receptors, including residents of the existing mobile home park. Additionally, the existing Temescal Wash drainage channel provides a more than 100-foot buffer zone between the Project site and the existing mobile homes. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with surrounding land uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 18 Environmental Checklist
c. As previously shown on Figure 10, the only residential uses in the local area consist of an existing mobile home park community located to the north of the Project site. The Project site is separated from this mobile home park by the Temescal Wash drainage channel, which does not afford any public access. As such, the Project has no potential to result in the physical division of an existing, established community, and no impact would occur.

2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial growth ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion:
a. Under existing conditions, the Project site is developed with several manufacturing buildings totaling 165,250 s.f. of building space, along with three additional ancillary buildings (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 3). According to Table 2-2 of Appendix N to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City’s General Plan, existing industrial land uses within the City of Corona generate approximately one employee per 1,000 s.f. of building area (Corona, 2019, Appendix N, Table 2-2). Thus, the existing uses (excluding the ancillary buildings) are estimated to generate approximately 165 jobs (165,250 s.f. x 1.0 jobs/1,000 s.f. = 165.3 jobs). The proposed Project consists of the redevelopment of the 16.6-acre property with 238,370 s.f. of industrial park building space and 96,150 s.f. of warehouse building space. Accordingly, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 335 jobs (334,520 s.f. x 1.0 jobs/1,000 s.f. = 334.5 jobs). Thus, the Project would result in a net increase in the number of jobs within the City by approximately 170 jobs. However, the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan buildout assumptions and therefore also would be consistent with Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2040 employment projections for the City of Corona.

Project-generated jobs would be well within the employment projections for the City of Corona. Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. The Project includes demolition of four structures, an outdoor storage area, outdoor parking areas, and exterior landscaping. The Project site does not contain any housing and there are no people living at the Project site that would be displaced by the Project. No impact associated with population or housing displacement would occur.

3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:
a. Southern California, including the City of Corona, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the region. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 19 Environmental Checklist
Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known active fault to the Project site is the Elsinore Fault zone, which lies approximately 3.4 miles to the southwest. No active or potentially active faults are known to traverse through the Project site and the Project site does not lie within the bounds of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Hazard Zoning Act nor a Riverside County fault zone. No features were observed during site geotechnical investigations that would indicate active faulting.

Impacts due to fault hazards would be less than significant. (Petra, 2022, p. 6) The Project site likely will be subjected to very strong seismically-related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the Project and structures within the site. The risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California region. The Project would be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the most current edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC, Title 24) and the City of Corona Building Code. The CBSC and City of Corona Building Code have been designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Additionally, the Project’s Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix A3) includes site-specific recommendations to attenuate seismic-related hazards. Improvements to BNSF facilities would occur in accordance with BNFS Engineering Instructions (BNSF, 2012). With mandatory compliance with the CBSC, the City of Corona Building Code, BNSF requirements, and the site-specific recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report, impacts due to seismic hazards would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. (Petra, 2022, pp. 8-9)
Seismic events can cause the soils within a slope to become unstable and slip, causing a landslide. According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not within a landslide zone (CDC, 2019). Further, no sizable slopes are located on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site exhibits level topography that is not subject to landslides, and the potential for ground lurching and lateral spreading are considered very low. (Petra, 2022, p. 6) The Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to seismic-related landslides. Therefore, impacts due to landslide hazards would be less than significant.

Riverside County has identified the Project site within a high liquefaction zone. Groundwater has been reported at depths between 45 and 50 feet below ground surface (bgs), and historic high groundwater may have been as shallow as 40 feet bgs. Beneath the surface fills on site, medium dense to occasionally dense alluvium was encountered in borings conducted by the Project geologist (Petra) to depths ranging from 19 to 25.5 feet bgs, which is underlain by an estimated 5- to 6-foot layer of concentrated cobbles to boulders. Beneath the layer of cobbles are very dense sandy soils to approximately 49 feet bgs and dense, saturated sandy soils from 50 to 65 feet bgs, which are interpreted as an older alluvial unit. Based upon the very dense nature of the older alluvial soils below the cobble/boulder zone, the liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. As such, surface manifestation of liquefaction such as ground fissures, sand boils, loss of bearing, liquefaction-induced settlement, etc. is considered very low. (Petra, 2022, p. 7) Accordingly, impacts due to liquefaction hazards would be less than significant.
b. Grading activities associated with the Project would require 9,786 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 50,809 cy of fill, requiring the import of approximately 41,023 cy of soil material. Environmental effects associated with the Project’s proposed grading activities have been evaluated throughout this IS/MND under the appropriate subject headings. In all cases, potential impacts due to site grading would be less than significant, or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures and/or regulatory compliance. There are no impacts associated with the Project’s proposed grading activities that have not already been evaluated and addressed by this IS/MND. Accordingly, no impact is identified. c. Under existing conditions, the Project site is fully developed with manufacturing and distribution warehouse uses. Elevations on site range from approximately 647 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southern corner of the site to approximately 636 feet amsl in the northwest corner of the site (Google Earth, 2019). There are PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 20 Environmental Checklist
no portions of the Project site that contain slopes exceeding a 10% gradient. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
d. Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place and is a natural process. Common agents of erosion in the Project region include wind and flowing water. Significant erosion typically occurs on steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. Erosion can be increased greatly by earthmoving activities if erosion-control measures are not employed.

The majority of the Project site is currently occupied with various improvements, including several large industrial/warehouse type buildings, office buildings, material racks, loading docks, asphalt pavements, concrete slabs etc. that appear to have been constructed several decades ago. As more fully discussed below under the analysis of potential impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials under the analysis of Issue 9, due to the presence of soils on site that are contaminated by metals, PCBs, and hydrocarbons, clean-up and abatement activities on site would occur in conformance with a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Soil Management Plan (“SMP”; IS/MND Technical Appendix F2). Under existing conditions, the contaminated soils occur beneath an existing cap consisting of building foundations and parking areas. The plan for implementation includes the existing property owner removing the areas of elevated concentrations of PCBs and then the Project Applicant grading the Project site under the SMP and establishing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Cap, which would consist of 6” of concrete for building foundations and pavement within truck courts and parking areas. The grading would be coordinated so that the soil in the area of the required cap remains in place and is not moved to outside of the Project’s proposed TSCA Cap. Mandatory compliance with the Project’s SMP would ensure that areas containing contaminated soils are not subject to erosion or the loss of topsoil.

In addition, pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Corona Municipal Code Section 15.36.290, the Project Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, including proposed grading. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. The City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit requires the Project Applicant to prepare and submit to the City for approval of a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would identify a combination of erosion control and sediment control measure (i.e., Best Management Practices [BMPs]) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-stormwater source discharges during construction. In addition, proposed construction activities would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for wind erosion. Rule 403 requires that certain construction practices be following that limit dust and dirt from leaving the construction site. For example, no dust is allowed to be tracked out of the site by more than 25 feet. With mandatory compliance to the requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP, as well as mandatory compliance to applicable regulatory requirements including but not limited to SCAQMD Rule 403 and City of Corona Municipal Code Section 15.36.290, the potential for water and/or wind erosion impacts during Project construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the disturbed areas would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces, and drainage would be controlled through a storm drain system. Based on the results of the Project’s Hydrology Study (Technical Appendix B1), the total peak volume of runoff from the Project site discharging into the Temescal Wash drainage channel during 100-year storm events would be reduced from 54.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) under existing conditions to 48.9 cfs under the proposed Project. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of siltation or erosion in stormwater discharged from the Project site. In addition, and pursuant to City of Corona Municipal Code Section 15.36.290, Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) would be required for future implementing developments within the Project site, which would identify post-construction measures to ensure on-going protection against erosion. Compliance with the WQMP would be required as a standard condition of PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 21 Environmental Checklist
approval for the Project, and long-term maintenance of on-site water quality features also would be required.

The Project’s Preliminary WQMP is included as Technical Appendix B2 to this IS/MND. The Preliminary WQMP includes structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) to ensure water quality standards are upheld. The BMPs identified in the Project’s WQMP would reduce the Project’s potential operational impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and would ensure that soil and erosion impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing, implementation of the Project would not significantly increase the risk of long-term wind or water erosion on- or off-site, and impacts would be less-than-significant. e. As previously discussed, the Project site is not within a landslide zone. Additionally, the Project site and surrounding area are fully developed and do not have natural or manufactured slopes. While there are large slopes associated with the former Corona Landfill to the southwest of the Project site, these slopes consist of manufactured slopes that were constructed in a manner to ensure long-term stability of the slopes, and the Project site is separated from the former landfill by existing developments and Magnolia Avenue. Accordingly, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and that would result in on- or off-site landslides. No impacts would occur.

Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along the sloping ground. The Project site’s potential for lateral spreading is considered low due to the site’s relatively flat topography, distance from slopes, and “very low” potential for liquefaction. Thus, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in lateral spreading, and no impact would occur.

The Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Technical Appendix A3) also includes a number of recommendations to address potential soil instability hazards, including subsidence and collapse. All grading and earthwork would be required to be performed in accordance with the Grading Code of the City of Corona, the applicable provisions of the CBSC, and also would be required to be performed in accordance with the sitespecific recommendations included in the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. Accordingly, impacts due to subsidence and collapse would be less than significant. f. Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling. Based on a site-specific investigation conducted by Petra, the near-surface soils encountered in Project site borings are granular and “Very Low” in expansion potential (Expansion Index [EI] less than 20). As such, the Project would result in no impacts due to expansive soils, and no mitigation would be required. (Petra, 2022, p. 18)

4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 22 Environmental Checklist
a. The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 1300 [“Water Quality”] et seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board (RWQCB). Water quality information for the Santa Ana River and other major water bodies within the Santa Ana River Basin is contained in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (“Basin Plan”), which was most recently updated in June 2019. (RWQCB, 2019).

The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments to their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA. The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Receiving waters for the Project site’s drainage include Temescal Creek – Reach 1B, Temescal Creek – Reach 1A, the Prado Dam, Santa Ana River – Reach 3, Santa Ana River – Reach 2, Santa Ana River – Reach 3, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Table 1, Receiving Waters – Impairments and Beneficial Uses, provides a summary of the Section 303(d) impairments for receiving waters for the Project site, along with the list of beneficial uses for receiving waters. (KWC, 2023a, p. 7) Table 1 Receiving Waters – Impairments and Beneficial Uses Notes: AGR = Agricultural Supply; BIOL = Biological Habitats of Special Significance; GWR = Groundwater Recharge; RARE = Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species; REC1 = Water Contact Recreation; REC2 = Non-Contact Water Recreation; SPWN = Spawning, Reproduction and Development; WARM = Warm Freshwater Habitat; and WILD = Wildlife Habitat. (KWC, 2023a, Table A.1)
A specific provision of the CWA applicable to the Project is CWA Section 402, which authorizes the NPDES permit program that covers point source pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program also requires operators of construction site one acre or larger to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge storm water under an NPDES construction storm water permit.

A discussion of the Project’s potential to result in water quality impacts during construction and long-term operation is presented below.

Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping activities. In addition, roadway and utility improvements and upgrades to BNSF facilities in and adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way would occur. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water quality pollution such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, solvents, and other PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 23 Environmental Checklist
chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.

As more fully discussed below under the analysis of potential impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials, because the Project site contains contaminated soils under existing conditions, all construction activities on site, including grading, would be conducted in accordance with the Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) between the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the existing property owner (Clow) (Docket No. SPRD 00/01SCC-4208, March 2002), as more fully documented by the Project’s Soil Management Plan (“SMP”; included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F2). The SMP has been designed to comply with the provisions of the CACA and would ensure that Project-related construction activities do not result in the discharge of contaminated soils from the Project site during construction. The Project’s SMP was reviewed and approved by the DTSC in 2022. All Project-related grading and site work during construction would be subject to oversight by the DTSC, which would monitor such activities for compliance with the CACA and the Project’s SMP. Accordingly, mandatory compliance with the Project’s SMP and the existing CACA between DTSC and the existing property owner would ensure that the Project does not violate waste discharge standards and requirements during construction activities, and would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the site’s existing contaminated soils to below a level of significance.

In addition, and pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and the City of Corona (City of Corona Municipal Code Sections 15.36.290, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] and Chapter

13.27, Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls), the Project would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Basin Plan. Compliance with the NPDES Permit and the Basin Plan involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities, including grading. The SWPPP would specify the BMPs that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Therefore, and based on the preceding analysis, with mandatory implementation of the Project’s SMP, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
Storm water pollutants commonly associated with the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., industrial park and warehouse uses with associated utility, roadway, and BNSF infrastructure improvements) include: bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds (TOCs), sediments, trash/debris, and oil/grease (KWC, 2023a, p. 20). Pursuant to City of Corona Municipal Code Sections 15.36.290 and Chapter

13.27, the Project Applicant would be required to implement a WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the pollutants of concern associated with development projects via BMPs, implementation of which ensures the on-going protection of the watershed basin. The project’s Preliminary WQMP, prepared by KWC, is included as Technical Appendix B2 to this MND. As identified in Technical Appendix B2, the Project is designed to include treatment control BMPs (i.e., the proposed Modular Wetland System [MWS] units) and operational source control BMPs (e.g., marking storm drain inlets; provisions related to landscape and outdoor pesticide use; measures to address potential water quality impacts at loading docks, etc.) to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. The Project’s WQMP also outlines the long-term funding mechanisms and obligations PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 24 Environmental Checklist
for the operation and maintenance of the Project water quality features. The on-site water quality features would be managed by the future property owners association. (KWC, 2023a, pp. 22 and 25-28) Adherence to statutory requirements and long-term maintenance of BMPs would ensure that water quality and waste discharge requirements are not violated. Therefore, Project would not result in substantial impacts to water quality, water quality standards, or waste discharge requirements associated with long-term operational activities, and impacts would be less than significant. b. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would be served with potable water by the City of Corona Department of Water and Power (DWP). The City has a diverse water supply portfolio including imported water from Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), groundwater from two local groundwater basins (Temescal Basin and Bedford-Coldwater Basin), and reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses (Corona, 2021, p. ES-2). The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates that it has sufficient available water resources to adequately serve projected water demands within the City’s service area through 2045. The water demand factors used to project future water demand within the City’s service area are based in part on the land uses planned by the City of Corona General Plan. Thus, because the Project is fully consistent with the site’s General Plan land use plan designation, it can be concluded that the City would have adequate water supplies, including groundwater supplies, to serve the Project in addition to past, present, and future commitments to supply water (Corona, 2021, Chapter 7).

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and the Project’s impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Development of the Project would include impervious surface coverage on the site; however, it should be noted that the amount of impervious surfaces proposed as part of the Project would be similar to the amount of impervious surfaces that occur on site under existing conditions (KWC, 2023a, p. 9). With implementation of the Project, all storm water runoff will be carried via gutters, catch basins, and the onsite storm drain system into the fully developed Temescal Wash following treatment by the Project’s proposed MWS units. Additionally, water captured by the Project’s proposed landscaped areas in the southern and eastern portions of the Project site would allow captured storm water to percolate into the ground. Peak runoff rates would be reduced overall as compared to existing pre-development conditions, although the total amount of runoff leaving the site would not substantially change. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes in the absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff as compared to existing conditions, and as such the Project would not substantially affect groundwater supplies or recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Under existing conditions, the Project site is entirely developed and does not contain a stream or river; therefore, the Project does not have the potential to alter the course of a stream or river. The Project is designed to maintain the existing drainage flow pattern across proposed impervious surfaces and would not result in significant erosion or siltation on- or off-site. All storm water runoff would be carried via gutters, catch basins, and the onsite storm drain system to the three existing storm drain pipes that would outlet into the fully developed Temescal Wash following treatment by the Project’s proposed MWS units. The existing storm drain pipes are used to convey site runoff to the Temescal Wash under existing conditions; thus, because all site runoff under the proposed Project would be conveyed to the existing storm drain pipes, it can be concluded that the Project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern. Additionally, and as shown in Table 2, Existing vs. Proposed Condition Peak Flow Summary, with implementation of the Project the peak runoff from the Project site under 100-year storm conditions (i.e., Drainage Areas A through D) would be reduced from

62.61 cfs under existing conditions to 58.38 cfs under the proposed Project (KWC, 2023b, Table 3). As such, it can be concluded that the Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding; create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 25 Environmental Checklist
proposed stormwater drainage systems; or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, Project impacts to the site’s existing drainage pattern would be less than significant. d. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C1356G, the Project site is within Zone X (Shaded), which encompasses areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flood, areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from the 1% annual chance flood (FEMA, 2008). The Project site is protected from flooding by the existing concrete lining associated with the Temescal Wash. As such, under existing conditions, the Project site does not convey any flood flows and the Project site is not subject to inundation during 100-year flood hazard events. In addition, and as shown previously in Table 2, with implementation of the Project the peak flows from the Project site during 100-year storm events (i.e., Drainage Areas A through D) would be reduced from 62.61 cfs under existing conditions to 58.38 cfs under the proposed Project (KWC, 2023b, Table 3). Because the Project would reduce the peak runoff from the Project site as compared to existing conditions, the Project would not cause or contribute to any flood hazards downstream. Accordingly, no impacts due to flood hazards would occur with implementation of the proposed Project.

Table 2 Existing vs. Proposed Condition Peak Flow Summary * Note 1: Existing 24” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is capable of conveying the proposed Q100 to the Temescal Creek Channel. See Appendix F of the Preliminary Drainage Report attached as Technical Appendix B1 to this MND for hydraulic calculations.
** Note 2: Differences in flows is due to widening of Magnolia Avenue to its intended right-of-way. (KWC, 2023b , Table 3)
e. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold a., above, with mandatory compliance with the City’s NPDES permit and with implementation of a SWPPP during construction and a WQMP during long-term operations, the Project would not degrade surface or ground water quality during either construction or long-term operation, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.
f. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold d., the Project site is within Zone X (Shaded), which encompasses areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flood, areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from the 1% annual chance flood (FEMA, 2008). The Project site is protected from flooding by the existing concrete lining associated with the Temescal Wash. As such, the Project site is not subject to inundation during 100-year flood events, and no impact would occur.
g. As indicated above under the analysis of Thresholds d. and f., the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone, and the Project would result in a reduction in peak runoff from the Project site as compared to existing conditions. As such, the Project would not increase hazards due to flooding, and impacts would be less than significant. As indicated in Table 2, with implementation of the Project the peak runoff from the Project site under 100-year storm conditions (i.e., Drainage Areas A through D) would be reduced from 62.61 cfs under PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 26 Environmental Checklist
existing conditions to 58.38 cfs under the proposed Project (KWC, 2023b , Table 3). Because all downstream drainage channels are adequately sized to accommodate flows from the Project site under existing conditions, and because the Project would result in a net reduction in peak flows from the site, the Project would not exceed capacity of any downstream storm water drainage systems. Accordingly, no impact would occur.

5. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion:
a. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Currently, State and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 53) In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, State, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s consistency with the AQMP is determined using the 2022 AQMP, as discussed below. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 53) Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The Project’s consistency with these criteria is discussed below.

Consistency Criterion No.1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion No.1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localized significance thresholds (LSTs) or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated below under the analysis of Thresholds b. and d., the Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. The Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 53-54) Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 27 Environmental Checklist
The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SCAQMD region are provided to the South California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts that are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP.

Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Corona General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 54) Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential likely would occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds would be exceeded, a less-than-significant impact would result. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 54)
The Project site is designated for “Mixed Use II: Industrial/Commercial (MU-II)” uses and is zoned by the CMSP for “Business Park (CMSP-BP)” land uses. The MU-II land use designation accommodates the development of light industrial uses or a mix of industrial and commercial uses. Generally, these should be recognized “clean” types of industries, typified by light manufacturing, research and development, and ecommerce. Additionally, the CMSP-BP zoning classification allows for flexibility in the mix of land uses that could include office type development, cleaner light industrial development, and limited commercial that supports and enhances business park uses. As previously stated, the proposed Project consists of two buildings with a total of 334,520 s.f. of warehousing/industrial park use (including office/mezzanine space).

For purposes of analysis, Building 1 has been evaluated assuming 238,370 s.f. of industrial park use while Building 2 has been evaluated assuming 96,150 sf of warehousing use. The proposed uses are consistent with the land use and zoning designation and therefore, the Project does not propose or require amendment of the site’s underlying land use and zoning designations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 54) Furthermore, the Project as evaluated herein would not result in or cause exceedances of regional or localized air quality significance thresholds. Emissions generated by the Project are accurately represented in the AQMP emissions modeling, air pollution control strategies, and associated assumptions for emissions affecting the SCAB. The Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The Project is therefore determined to be consistent with the second criterion. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 55)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. Additionally, Project construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds, and the Project’s land uses are fully consistent with the growth projections utilized in the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the AQMP, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.
b. The proposed Project has the potential to generate substantial pollutant concentrations during both construction activities and long-term operation. The following analysis is based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD (which are based on Federal and State air quality standards). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction and longterm operation are depicted in Table 3, Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds. Refer to subsections

3.3 through 3.5 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (“AQIA”; Technical Appendix C) for a discussion of the methodology and modeling inputs used to estimate the Project’s construction- and operational-related air quality emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 36)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 28 Environmental Checklist
Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-1)
Impact Analysis for Construction Emissions
At the time the Project’s AQIA was prepared, it was anticipated that construction of the Project would commence in March 2023 and would last through January 2024. While this assumption represented the Project Applicant’s best estimate at that time, it is now likely that the Project’s construction activities would not commence until mid-2024 and BNSF improvements may or may not occur concurrently. However, the construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario because construction-related emissions would be less if construction were to occur any time after the assumed March 2023 start date since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent1. That is, by assuming a start date for construction activities of March 2023, the analysis of the Project’s level of construction-related air quality emissions as disclosed herein and in the Project’s AQIA overstates the Project’s potential construction-related air quality impacts, as CalEEMod utilizes lower emission rates as the analysis year increases. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment also represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per the CEQA Guidelines. CalEEMod calculates maximum daily emissions for summer and winter periods. As such, the estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation for both summer and winter periods, which are summarized on Table 4, Overall Construction Emissions Summary – Without Mitigation. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from Project construction activities would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, Project construction-related air quality emissions would not violate an air quality standard and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 40) Impact Analysis for Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the Project are expected to generate air pollutant emissions from area source, energy source, mobile source, and on-site cargo handling equipment. Refer to Subsection 3.5 of the Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix C) for a discussion of the modeling inputs and methodology used to estimate the Project’s long-term operational emissions. As previously discussed, under existing conditions the Project site is developed with manufacturing and distribution uses. Because the Project would result in the elimination of the existing land uses on site, the analysis of the Project’s potential operational air quality impacts is based on the Project’s net increase of criteria pollutants as compared to existing conditions. Table 5, Operational Emissions from Existing On-Site Development, depicts the estimated emissions associated with the site’s existing land uses. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 43)
1 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 29 Environmental Checklist
Table 4 Overall Construction Emissions Summary – Without Mitigation Note: CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix C).
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Table 3-5)
Table 5 Operational Emissions from Existing On-Site Development Note: CalEEMod operational-source emissions for the existing development are presented in Appendix 3.2 to the Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix C).
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-8)
Long-term operational emissions associated with the Project are presented in Table 6, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. As shown, the Project’s net increase in daily regional emissions from on-going operations would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. In fact, the data in Table 6 shows that even without taking into consideration the site’s existing operational emissions, the total operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.

Therefore, Project operational-related air quality emissions would not violate an air quality standard and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 44) PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 30 Environmental Checklist
Table 6 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Note: CalEEMod operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.3 and 3.4 to the Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix C).
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Table 3-9)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a violation of any of the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Accordingly, Project construction and operational regional air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. c. As indicated above under the analysis of Threshold b., and as shown in Table 4 and Table 6, Project construction and operational-related air quality emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, even without taking into consideration the site’s existing operational emissions. Thus, although the Project would result in a net increase of criteria pollutants, based on SCAQMD guidance the Project’s impacts due to a net increase of criteria pollutants would be less than significant.
d. During both construction and operation, the Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The following provides an analysis based on the applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the State of California and SCAQMD, an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in or contribute to CO “hot spots,” and an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards. Refer to Section 3 of the Project’s AQIA for a discussion of methodology and modeling inputs used to calculate the Project’s localized air quality emissions, and Section 2 of the Project’s PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 31 Environmental Checklist
Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”; Technical Appendix D) for a discussion of methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Project’s potential to result in health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Impact Analysis for Construction Localized Emissions
Based on SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions for concern during construction activities are on-site NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. The LST Methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” As such, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The Project’s construction activities could actively disturb approximately 1.0 acre per day during demolition, 3.5 acres per day during site preparation, and 4.0 acres per day during grading activities. For purposes of analysis, in consideration of off-site Magnolia Avenue and BNSF facility improvements that may or may not occur concurrently with Project site construction, and in order to use linear regression, it is conservatively assumed that 5 acres can be disturbed during site preparation activities. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 46) Sensitive receptors that could be adversely affected by the Project’s localized air quality emissions are depicted on Exhibit 3-A of the Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix C). As shown, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site are the existing residences at 1410 East 6th Street, approximately 149 feet north of the Project site (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 48).

Table 7, Localized Construction-Source Emissions (Without Mitigation), identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As shown in Table 7, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 50) Table 7 Localized Construction-Source Emissions (Without Mitigation) AHighest concentration from the last 3 years of available data.

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3 . All others are expressed in ppm.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Table 3-12)
Impact Analysis for Operational Localized Emissions
The LST analysis for operations generally includes on-site sources (area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo handling equipment). The Project’s estimated operational localized emissions are presented in Table 8, Localized Significance Summary of Operations. As shown, the Project’s calculated long-term operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds established by the SCAQMD at the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., the existing residences at 1410 East 6th Street, located approximately 149 feet north of the Project site).

Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 32 Environmental Checklist
Table 8 Localized Significance Summary of Operations
AHighest concentration from the last 3 years of available data.

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3 . All others are expressed in ppm.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Table 3-14)
Impact Analysis for CO “Hot Spots”
It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods.

This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 51) Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 52) The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.9 ppm and 1.4 ppm, respectively (data from Metropolitan Riverside County 1 monitoring station for 2020). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 52)
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph) – or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix – in order to generate a significant CO impact. Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 3-16 of the Project’s AQIA. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 33 Environmental Checklist
and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1- hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 52) Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
A Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate potential mobilesource impacts during construction and long-term operation, and is included as Technical Appendix D. Refer to the Project’s HRA for a detailed discussion of background and the methodology used to calculate the Project’s potential health risks. The nearest modeled receptors considered in the analysis are illustrated on Exhibit 2-D of the Project’s HRA.

Construction Health Risk Assessment
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source DPM emissions are the existing residences located approximately 149 feet north of the Project site at 1410 East 6th Street. The modeled receptor at this location was placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions is estimated at 2.73 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.

All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 1)
Operational Health Risk Assessment
The Project’s operational health risks were calculated at the nearest residential receptor, nearest worker, and nearest school child.

The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions are the existing residences located approximately 149 feet north of the Project site at 1410 East 6th Street. The modeled receptor at this location was placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 0.32 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled residential receptors are exposed to lesser concentrations and are located at a greater distance from the Project site than the MEIR analyzed herein, and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) generally dissipate with distance from the source, all other residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project site would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 1)
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is an adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 130 feet south of the Project site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.11 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyzed herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 34 Environmental Checklist
exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2) Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional noncancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet.

California freeway studies show about a 70-percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80-percent dropoff in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. A ¼-mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust than, and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius discussed above. There are no schools within ¼-mile of the Project site. The nearest school is Lincoln Fundamental Elementary School, which is located approximately 4,500 feet west of the Project site. Because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than ¼-mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the Project. As such, the Project’s health risk impacts affecting nearby schools would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agriculture uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectional odors. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 57) Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 57)

6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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 of 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
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 35 Environmental Checklist
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:
a. The only applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system are the City’s General Plan, the City of Corona Municipal Code, and the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Future development on site would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code ordinances related to the circulation system, including, but not limited to, Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) and Chapter 16.23 (Development Impact Fees). In addition, City staff conducted an analysis and determined that the Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies.

Furthermore, the Project would result in a net increase in vehicle trips generated on site by approximately 364 trips per day (in terms of Passenger Car Equivalents [PCEs]), and the Project would not contribute more than 50 net new peak hour trips to any driveway or off-site study area intersection, including intersections identified by the CMP. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 requires an evaluation of a project’s environmental impacts due to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The requirement to evaluate VMT replaced the previous requirement to evaluate automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA dated December of 2018 (Technical Advisory). Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City of Corona adopted their City of Corona CEQA Assessment – VMT Analysis Guidelines (City Guidelines), which documents the City’s VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. The VMT analysis presented herein has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, p. 1)
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact. The City of Corona utilizes the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool). The Screening Tool allows users to input an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects. The following screening criteria are described within the City Guidelines: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; Map Based Screening based on Low VMT Area; and Project Type Screening. A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less-than-significant impact. However, the Project does not meet any of the screening criteria. As such, additional analysis was conducted for the Project to evaluate the Project’s potential VMT impacts. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, pp. 1-3)
The City Guidelines identify the City of Corona General Plan Model (CGPM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land development projects in the City of Corona. The City’s CGPM was utilized to generate Citywide averages, use of the CGPM is necessary to ensure the project VMT is evaluated consistently. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, p. 3)
As identified in the City Guidelines, projects that are not screened out but are consistent with the General Plan can typically tier from the General Plan EIR and will not need an independent VMT analysis. As previously mentioned, the Project intends to develop two industrial use buildings with a total of 334,520 s.f. of building PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 36 Environmental Checklist
area on a property with the underlying General Plan land use designation of “MU-II Mixed Use:

Industrial/Commercial” and a zoning classification of “Corona Magnolia Specific Plan Business Park (CMSPBP).” Additionally, the Corona General Plan traffic demand model (CGPM) was utilized to verify the existing employment types for the Project Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 3266 to be consistent with the proposed Project’s anticipated employment. TAZ 3266 was found to contain high levels of employment such as retail, wholesale, and transportation, which further confirms that the Project is consistent with the CMSP’s underlying land use assumptions. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the CMSP underlying land use assumptions and zoning classifications. As such, the Project does not require additional VMT analysis as the Project can tier from the City General Plan EIR, as noted in the City Guidelines. Therefore, the Project’s impact on VMT are presumed to be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, pp. 3-4) c. As indicated above under the analysis of Threshold b., the Project is fully consistent with the City’s General Plan and as such the Project may tier from the General Plan EIR findings with respect to VMT. As such, no further analysis of the Project’s impact on VMT is required, as the Project’s impacts due to VMT are presumed to be less than significant.
d. As indicated above under the analysis of Threshold b., the Project is fully consistent with the City’s General Plan and as such the Project may tier from the General Plan EIR findings with respect to VMT. As such, no further analysis of the Project’s impact on VMT is required, as the Project’s impacts due to VMT are presumed to be less than significant.
e. The nearest airport is the Corona Municipal Airport which is located approximately 3.6 miles to the northwest of the Project site. The Project does not include any airport-related components, and there are no components of the proposed Project that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. Accordingly, no impact would occur. f. As part of the Project, no improvements are proposed to El Camino Avenue; however, Magnolia Avenue along the Project site’s frontage would be improved. Specifically, the Project Applicant would dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Magnolia Avenue. Improvements to Magnolia Avenue would include the construction of a 14-foot-wide median, travel lanes along the northern side of the roadway ranging in width from 46 to 53 feet (with the additional width occurring at the approach to El Camino Avenue), curb and gutter, and a 12-foot-wide landscaped parkway with a curb-adjacent sidewalk. In addition, planned improvements to BNFS facilities whether constructed in whole or in part by the Project applicant, the City, or BNSF would include but not be limited to moving, replacing and/or upgrading to current standards the cross-arms, warning signs and flashers, and associated poles on both sides of the right-of-way and in the center median, installing pavement upgrades under the train tracks that cross the right-of-way, revising pavement markings, and transitioning curb ramps, gutters, sidewalks, and crosswalks. During construction, the Project Applicant and construction contractors would be conditioned by the City to require the implementation of a temporary traffic control plan that complies with the applicable requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CMUTCD), which would preclude potential construction-related impacts during improvements to Magnolia Avenue and to BNSF facilities within and adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way. Under long-term conditions, access to the Project site would be accommodated from two 50-foot-wide driveways along Magnolia Avenue. The southwestern driveway along Magnolia Avenue would form a new four-way intersection at Sherborn Street, which would be signalized. The northeastern driveway along Magnolia Avenue would be restricted to right-in/right-out access only. The Project’s application materials includes a truck turning template that demonstrates that the proposed driveways are adequately sized to accommodate truck turns into and out of the Project site. All proposed roadway improvements would be in full compliance with City of Corona Street Standards, and there are no components of the proposed Project that would result in increased hazards due to a design feature. As such, impacts would be less than significant. g. The Project would be required to accommodate adequate emergency access during both construction and longterm operation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project also would be subject to any conditions required PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 37 Environmental Checklist
by the City of Corona Fire Department to maintain adequate emergency access. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
h. The Project site is located in an area that is served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and “Corona Cruiser,” a Fixed Route service by the City of Corona. The nearest RTA bus route to the Project site is Route 1, with the nearest bus stop occurring near the intersection of 6th Street and El Camino Avenue, approximately 0.2-mile north of the Project site. The Corona Cruiser “Blue Line” runs along Magnolia Avenue adjacent to the Project site, and provides access to numerous destinations within the City, including the Corona Transit Center, where riders can access RTA Routes 1, 3, 205, 206, and the Metrolink. The Project would not conflict with any of the RTA or Corona Cruiser routes. Therefore, the Project would not impact alternative transportation policies and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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. Conflicts with local biological resource policies or ordinances ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Conflicts with any habitat conservation plan ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion:

In order to assess the Project’s potential to result in impacts to biological resources, a site-specific biological due diligence memorandum was prepared for the Project site by ELMT Consulting (ELMT), dated June 27, 2022, and included as Technical Appendix E.
a. ELMT conducted a literature review for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project site, and also conducted a site visit to inventory and evaluate the condition of the habitat within the Project site. Avian species observed during the field investigation include northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis). No mammalian, fish, or amphibian species were observed during the field investigation. The Project site a provides limited foraging and cover habitat for wildlife species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. (ELMT, 2022, pp. 1-3) The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status natural plant communities in the Corona South United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle. The field investigation evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the Project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. The literature search identified seventeen (17) special-status plant species, forty-four (44) special-status wildlife species, and five (5) special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Corona South quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Project boundaries based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity are presented in Attachment B to the Project’s biological due diligence memorandum (Technical Appendix E). (ELMT, 2022, pp. 3-4)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 38 Environmental Checklist
Special-Status Plants
No special-status plant species were observed during the field investigation, which was conducted during the blooming season for all species with a potential to occur on site. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it was determined that the Project site does not have potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent. As such, the Project would result in no impacts to special-status plants. (ELMT, 2022, p. 4)
Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and a low potential to support California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). The Project site only provides limited foraging opportunities for the aforementioned species, and no suitable nesting habitat was observed onsite. It was further determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the Project site has been heavily disturbed from historic and ongoing land uses and development. Accordingly, no impacts to special-status wildlife would occur. (ELMT, 2022, p. 4) Nesting Birds
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the breeding season. Although the site is developed, on-site structures and ornamental landscaping have the potential to provide foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that area adapted to disturbed areas and urban environments. Additionally, the site has potential to support ground-nesting birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, the Project has the potential to result in impacts to nesting birds during the breeding season. This is evaluated as a potentially significant impact for which mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1, which requires pre-construction surveys during the nesting season and the avoidance of any active nests identified, would ensure that Project impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less-than-significant levels. (ELMT, 2022, p. 4)
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1, Project impacts to endangered/threatened and other sensitive plant and wildlife species would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. b. The Project site consists entirely of existing industrial development and associated infrastructure and landscaping. Historic and existing land uses have eliminated the natural plant communities that historically occurred and have altered the composition of the soils on-site. No native plant communities would be impacted from implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site only contains land cover types that would be classified as developed and ornamental landscaping. Thus, the Project would result in no impacts to sensitive natural plant communities. (ELMT, 2022, p. 2)
The Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It should be noted that a channelized portion of Temescal Wash borders the eastern boundary of the Project site. No impacts to Temescal Wash, a jurisdictional feature, are expected to occur with implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project would result in no impacts to riparian habitats. (ELMT, 2022, p. 3) PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 39 Environmental Checklist
The Project site is not located within any federally-designated Critical Habitat. The nearest federally-designated Critical Habitat occurs approximately 3.3 miles to the northwest for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) within the Santa Ana River. Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat would not occur as a result of the proposed Project and consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would not be required for impacts to Critical Habitat. No impact would occur. (ELMT, 2022, p. 4) c. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold b., the Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW. It should be noted that a channelized portion of Temescal Wash borders the eastern boundary of the Project site. No impacts to Temescal Wash, a jurisdictional feature, are expected to occur with implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project would result in no impacts to federally-protected wetlands or other jurisdictional resources. (ELMT, 2022, p. 3) d. The Project site is not identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage. However, the southeastern boundary of the Project site is located approximately 80 feet northwest of MSHCP Constrained Linkage 4, which focuses on habitat for wetland species, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, and movement for species connecting to Core Areas in Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain and areas upstream along Temescal Wash. The proposed Project would be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed by historic land uses and existing development and that are bordered by existing development in all directions. Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly impact, prevent, or restrict the use of the Temescal Wash, Temescal Canyon, or any other Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) areas identified as a migratory corridor/linkage.

Accordingly, no impact would occur. (ELMT, 2022, p. 3)
e. The proposed Project would not conflict with any City of Corona ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. The Project would be subject to City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.33 (Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Mitigation Fee), which requires a payment of a fee that is used for the acquisition and preservation of vegetation communities and natural areas known to support plant and wildlife species covered by the MSHCP. The Project also would not conflict with Section 12.22.080 (Heritage Trees) of the City’s Municipal Code, as none of the existing trees on site comprise “Heritage” trees. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
f. The Project site is located in a portion of Riverside County that is subject to the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County California (SKR HCP) and the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

Project Compliance with SKR HCP
Riverside County established a boundary in 1996 for protecting the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), a federally-endangered and State-threatened species. The Project site is not located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee, and the Project therefore has no potential to conflict with the SKR HCP. No impact would occur. (ELMT, 2022, p. 5)
Project Compliance with Western Riverside County MSHCP
The Project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the MSHCP but is not located within any Criteria Cells, conservation areas, or designated survey areas. The City is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the Project site is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity under Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, public and private development that are outside of Criteria Areas and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands are permitted under the MSHCP, subject to consistency with the MSHCP policies that apply to areas outside of Criteria Areas.

As such, to achieve coverage, the Project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP: (ELMT, 2022, p. 5)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 40 Environmental Checklist
• The policies for the protection of species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pools as set for in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP;
• The policies for the protection of narrow endemic plant species as set forth in Section 6.1.3; • The Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4; and • The requirements for conducting additional surveys as set forth in Section 6.3.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP) No jurisdictional drainages, riparian/riverine, and/or wetland features were observed within the Project site during the field investigation. Development of the proposed Project would not result in impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and a MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would not be required for the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed Project. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the Project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the Project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the Project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. From this review of historic aerial photographs and observations during the field investigations, it can be concluded that there is no indication of vernal pools or suitable fairy shrimp habitat occurring within the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. (ELMT, 2022, p. 5)
Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP) The Project site is not located within the designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. (ELMT, 2022, p. 5) Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP) The Project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Criteria Cells, corridors, or linkages.

Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines do not apply to the proposed Project, and the Project has no potential to conflict with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. (ELMT, 2022, p. 5) Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP) The Project site is not located within any designated survey areas. As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with MSHCP Section 6.3.2. (ELMT, 2022, p. 5)
Conclusion
As demonstrated by the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with either the SKR HCP or the MSHCP. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 In the event that vegetation and tree removal should occur between January 15 and September 15, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the Project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Corona Planning and Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 200-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500- feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Corona Planning and Development Department.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 41 Environmental Checklist

8. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Loss of mineral resource or recovery site ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion:
a. According to mapping information available from the California Geologic Survey (CGS), the Project site is mapped as being located within Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) 2, which indicates, “[a]reas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists” (CGS, n.d.). However, the MRZ 2 classification appears to be associated with the Temescal Wash, which is concrete-lined drainage channel along the boundary of the Project site. Furthermore, and as shown on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan Technical Background Report, the Project site is not located within an area containing “Designated Aggregate Resources,” despite the fact that the Project site is located within an area identified as “Classified Aggregate Minerals” (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Figure 4-2). Moreover, the Project site has been developed with light industrial/manufacturing uses since at least 1959, and does not appear to ever have been used for mineral resources production (HMC, 2023a, p. 7).

Additionally, the Project site occurs in a portion of the City that is fully urbanized, and thus the Project site would not represent a suitable location for mineral resources extraction. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource or recovery site, and impacts would be less than significant.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:
a. Implementation of the Project would result in the redevelopment of the 16.6-acre Project site with two buildings totaling 334,520 s.f. that would be used for industrial park and warehouse uses. In addition, off-site improvements would occur in and adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way including roadway and BNFS infrastructure improvements. The analysis below evaluates the potential for the Project to result in a substantial hazard to people or the environment due to existing site conditions, construction activities, and long-term operation.

Existing Site Conditions
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site by Hazard Management Consulting (HMC), dated February 9, 2023, and included as Technical Appendix F1. As documented by the Phase I ESA, the Project site has historically been used for metal forging and casting and more recently the manufacture of fire hydrants, gaskets, clamps, and related products. The historic operations at the Project site led to previous remedial efforts overseen by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) including removal of the former foundry waste, removal of sand blast residue, general site cleanup as well as the removal and closure of four underground storage tanks (USTs). No releases were found as part PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 42 Environmental Checklist
of the UST closure. The work was done to the satisfaction of the RCDEH and recent inspections by the County did not document continued concern. These items are considered Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). (HMC, 2023a, p. iv)
As part of the historical operations, chemicals were used and released at the Project site. The Project site has been subject to a thorough fence line to fence line review and investigation by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) through the Corrective Action Process. This included an evaluation of all of the suspect uses and features at the Project site and involved soil, soil gas, and groundwater. The investigation conducted by DTSC at the Project site to date has found evidence of metals, PCBs, and hydrocarbons in shallow soil at the Project site at elevated concentrations. VOCs were not found to be a concern in the subsurface and there was no evidence of groundwater impact from the Project site. However, due to the findings of PCBs at the Project site, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was notified as they have exclusive jurisdiction over PCB cleanups. (HMC, 2023a, p. iv) The previous property owners implemented a remedial plan for the Project site as presented in a Corrective Measures Study (CMS), CM Implementation Report (CMSIR), and CM Implementation Workplan (CMIWP).

The CMS Implementation Report and Workplan are included as Technical Appendices F4 and F3 to this IS/MND, respectively. The CMIWP identified excavation (AOC-7) and capping in place (AOC-1, AOC-5, and AOC-7) as the selected remedy. As part of the remediation efforts, the prior property owner excavated all leadcontaminated soil that exceeded the lead hazardous waste criterion of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). (HMC, 2023a, pp. iv-v)
As part of the transaction, the previous property owners implemented the work for the CMSIR including capping AOC-1 and AOC-5 and recording of all the required documents so that the case will be considered closed. The field work was conducted between July and October 2021 and the asphalt cap put in place as documented in the CMSIR (Technical Appendix F4). DTSC approved the CMSIR dated October 25, 2021, with their letter dated April 14, 2022 (a copy of the DTSC approval letter is included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F9). (HMC, 2023a, p. v)
During the field work described above, additional areas were found to contain PCBs in shallow soil. It appears that foundry sand containing PCBs may have been used as fill in certain areas of the Project site. After notification was made to EPA, an investigation was conducted across the Project site to assess the lateral extent of PCBs, the results of which are presented in the report entitled “PCB Soil Investigation Report,” prepared by EarthCon, dated October 29, 2021, and included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F8. The soil results related to PCB including supplemental sampling were summarized in a document titled “Risk-Based Approval Modification Application 40 CFR 761.61(c)(1)” (herein, “RBA”), prepared by WSP, dated April 25, 2022, and included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F5 (WSP, 2022). A total of 99 soil samples were collected from a total of 36 soil boring locations. PCB concentrations were detected in 18 boring locations with the majority of these detections in the northern portion of the Project site correlating to the presence of foundry sand most likely used as fill. The former property owners proposed to EPA that the previous approval described above be amended and that the “hot spots” be removed from the Project site and all of the remaining soil containing PCBs be retained on site under a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Cap. The hot spot removal commenced in February 2023. The TSCA Cap would actually be the future building slabs and pavement sections proposed as part of the Project. EPA approved the revised Risk Based Application on June 26, 2022 (a copy of the EPA approval letter is included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F9). (HMC, 2023a, p. v) A Land Use Covenant (LUC) has been prepared and recorded with the County Recorder that limits the Project site to commercial and industrial use (no residential, hospitals, day care, or schools are allowed) and also imposes other requirements of the SMP. The plan for implementation includes the existing property owner removing the areas of elevated concentrations of PCBs and then the Project Applicant grading the Project site under the SMP. The grading would be coordinated so that the soil in the area of the required cap remains in place and is not moved to outside of the TSCA Cap. Annual inspections are required with a report submitted to PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 43 Environmental Checklist
DTSC confirming compliance with the terms of the LUC. The LUC will be revised and re-recorded upon completion of the pending field work. (HMC, 2023b, p. 3; HMC, 2023a, p. v) As part of construction activities associated with the proposed Project, all existing improvements and structures on site would be demolished following grading of the Project site, which would include over excavation and recompaction of soil as necessary for geotechnical and civil engineering considerations. Specifically, the existing cap at the Project site would be removed and then replaced following grading activities as part of Project site development. Such work would remove the existing cap from the Project site, require notification to DTSC and EPA, and must be conducted pursuant to the Project’s SMP (IS/MND Technical Appendix F2) and most recent RBA (IS/MND Technical Appendix F5). Compliance with the SMP and RBA would require that all PCB waste be managed under a TSCA Cap that would include at least 6 inches of concrete. The Project has been designed to include 6” of concrete for building foundations and pavement within truck courts and parking areas, which would in essence serve as the required TSCA Cap. (HMC, 2023a, pp. v-vi) The Project’s SMP (IS/MND Technical Appendix F2) presents the procedures to be used to move and handle soil at the Project site, including procedures for stockpiling, monitoring for general health and safety concerns, requirements for either reuse on site or off-site disposal of impacted material, and chemical testing requirements for potential import soil that may be necessary. The SMP presents the procedures to manage the known impacts at the Project site on site and also presents the procedures to be used to respond to potential unknown conditions. In addition to the general requirements of the SMP, grading at the Project site also would be subject to compliance with AQMD Rule 1466 (Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants). (HMC, 2023a, p. vi)
Accordingly, clean-up and abatement activities on site would occur in conformance with a DTSC and EPA approved SMP (IS/MND Technical Appendix F2) and Operations and Maintenance Plan (IS/MND Technical Appendix F7). Soils containing PCBs and other contaminants would be capped on site. Because future development on site would be subject to the recorded LUC, approved SMP, and approved RBA, impacts due to existing contamination at the Project site would be less than significant with Project implementation, including construction of the building foundations that would serve as a TSCA Cap. As compliance with the DTSC and EPA approved LUC, SMP, and RBA are mandatory regulatory requirements, no mitigation measures would be required. Thus, with implementation of the remediation measures required by the DTSC and EPA, the Project would not result in significant environmental effects associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with existing site contamination, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Construction
The existing buildings on site were reported to have been built in the 1950s through the 1960s during a time when asbestos was commonly found in construction materials. Suspect asbestos containing materials were observed at the Project site including drywall, joint compound, ceiling tiles, vinyl floor tile, acoustic ceilings, and mastic. As such, a significant impact could occur during demolition of the existing structures due to disturbances to asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCMs). This is evaluated as a potentially significant impact.

However, SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Assuming that ACCMs are present in the existing structure located on-site, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos and requires that an on-site representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACCM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing, and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACCMs. Because future development on the Project site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be less than significant. (HMC, 2023a, p. vi) PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 44 Environmental Checklist
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would operate on the subject property during construction of the Project and some equipment also would conduct improvement work in the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way.

Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. Also, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, SCAQMD, and RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 (as discussed above), the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Operation
As previously mentioned, the Project’s future building occupants are not yet identified, although it is anticipated that the proposed buildings would be used for industrial park and warehouse uses. It is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the future building user’s daily operations. State and federal Community-Rightto-Know laws allow public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies the proposed building on the Project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would require a permit from the RCDEH in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to Riverside County Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. Additionally, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of hazardous material. The HMBEP intends to satisfy federal and State Community Right-To-Know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders.

If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Refer to the analysis of Threshold a. As indicated therein, with mandatory compliance with applicable regulations (including compliance with the Project’s LUC, SMP, and RBA), the Project’s potential impacts due to the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. c. There are no existing public schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest existing school to the Project site is the Lincoln Fundamental elementary School located approximately 0.8-mile to the west.

Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 45 Environmental Checklist
d. Regulatory agency database information was obtained from a standard radius Project site Assessment (ASTM) report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Search distances for specific databases were one-quarter to one mile as specified in the ASTM 1527-13 standard. The database search includes over 70 federal, state, local, and proprietary records (HMC, 2023a, p. 22). A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix B of Technical Appendix F1. The Project site was listed in a number Environmental Data Resources lists for the project site’s listings of chemical use, storage, disposal, and air discharges from the Project site, but no direct references to spills or releases. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a., clean-up and abatement activities on site would occur in conformance with a DTSC and EPA approved SMP (IS/MND Technical Appendix F2) and Operations and Maintenance Plan (IS/MND Technical Appendix F7). Soils containing PCBs and other contaminants would be capped on site. Because future development on site would be subject to the recorded LUC, approved SMP, and approved RBA, impacts due to existing contamination at the Project site would be less than significant with Project implementation, including construction of the building foundations that would serve as a TSCA Cap. As compliance with the DTSC and EPA approved LUC, SMP, and RBA are mandatory regulatory requirements, no mitigation measures would be required. Thus, because the Project would be required to implement remediation on site (including the required TSCA Cap), Project impacts due to existing site contamination would be less than significant. e. There are no existing or planned public or public use airport within two miles of the Project site. The nearest airport is the Corona Municipal Airport which is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Policy Document for the Corona Municipal Airport, the Project site is located well outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for this facility (ALUC, 2004. Map CO-1).

Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, and no impact would occur.
f. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route.

Additionally, there are no emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans in effect in the local area.

During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be required to be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. Furthermore, improvements planned as part of the Project are not anticipated to adversely affect traffic operations in the local area, including along nearby segments of El Camino Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, City staff reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to and from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.
g. According to Figure 5-14 of the Technical Background Report prepared for the City’s General Plan, the Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and are not subject to wildland fire hazards (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Figure 5-14). Due to the developed nature of the Project vicinity, the Project has no potential to exacerbate wildfire risks. Accordingly, no impact would occur.

10. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 46 Environmental Checklist
Discussion:
a. The Project has the potential to exceed the City’s noise level standards during construction, due to on-going site operations, and due to Project-generated traffic. In order to assess the Project’s potential noise impacts, a Project-specific technical study was prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This report is entitled, “Magnolia Avenue Business Center Noise Impact Analysis” (herein, “NIA”), is dated February 14, 2022, and is included as IS/MND Technical Appendix G. Refer to the Project’s NIA for a discussion of noise fundamentals, applicable regulations, existing noise level measurements, and the methodology used to estimate the Project’s noise impacts.

Noise Thresholds of Significance
Refer to Section 4 of the Project’s NIA for a detailed discussion of how the thresholds of significance for noise were identified. For purposes of analysis, noise impacts would be considered significant if any of the noise level increases shown in Table 9, Noise Significance Criteria Summary, would be exceeded. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 21)
Table 9 Noise Significance Criteria Summary
1 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040 Noise[C][2] (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NIA, included as Technical Appendix G). 2 FICON, 1992.
3 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040[D][2] Noise (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NIA). 4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. 5 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.050 Vibration (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NIA). "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; "RMS" = root-mean-square (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 4-1)
Construction Noise Analysis
Refer to Section 8 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for a discussion and overview of the methodology to estimate the Project’s construction-related noise impacts, including a description of the various construction phases that were evaluated and a discussion of construction reference noise levels used to conduct the analysis.

Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages: 1) Demolition, 2) Site Preparation, 3) Grading, 4) Building Construction, 5) Paving, and 6) Architectural Coating. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. Noise impacts from construction would be temporary and would cease following construction. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 39) PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 47 Environmental Checklist
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed.

Consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 8-1 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 10, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 38.4 to 60.7 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix 8.1 to the Project’s NIA includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 41) Table 10 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G). 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the
nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1 to the Project’s NIA. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-2)
To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 11, Construction Noise Level Compliance. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise would be less than significant at all receiver locations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 42)
Table 11 Construction Noise Level Compliance
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G). 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 10.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 9. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-3)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 48 Environmental Checklist
Operational Noise Impact Analysis (Site Operations)
To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse and industrial uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, trash compactor, and truck movements. Refer to Subsection 7.2 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for a discussion of reference noise levels used to evaluate the Project’s operational noise levels, and refer to NIA Subsection 7.3 for a discussion of the CadnaA Noise Prediction Model that was used to calculate anticipated noise levels. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 29) Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, trash compactor, and truck movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 12, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 33.6 to 49.3 dBA Leq. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 33)
Table 12 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
1 See Exhibit 7-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1 to the Project’s NIA.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-2)
Table 13, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 32.5 to 48.2 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the estimated duration of noise activity as outlined in Table 7-1 and Appendix 7.1 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G). (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, pp. 33-34) To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Corona exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 14, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project would satisfy the City of Corona daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project’s operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 34)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 49 Environmental Checklist
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Refer to Section 7.6 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for a discussion of how the Project’s operational noise level increases were calculated. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 15, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, and Table 16, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, the Project is not expected to generate a measurable daytime and nighttime operational noise level increase at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 9. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase would be less than significant at all receiver locations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 35) Table 13 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels
1 See Exhibit 7-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1 to the Project’s NIA.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-3)
Table 14 Operational Noise Level Compliance
1 See Exhibit 6-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 12 and Table 13. 3 Exterior noise level standards, as shown on Table 9.
4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-4)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 50 Environmental Checklist
Table 15 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases 1 See Exhibit 6-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for the receiver locations. 2 Total mitigated Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 12. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of the Project’s NIA. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of the Project’s NIA. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 9.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-5)
Table 16 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases 1 See Exhibit 6-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) for the receiver locations. 2 Total mitigated Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 13. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of the Project’s NIA. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of the Project’s NIA. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 9.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-6)
Off-Site Operational Traffic Noise Analysis
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project would influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas and at the Project site. According to the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment (IS/MND Technical Appendix H1), the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 184 more two-way (non-passenger car equivalent [PCE]) trips per day with 15 fewer AM and 24 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the existing use. The Trip Generation Assessment determined that no traffic analysis is required since the Project is anticipated to result in a net reduction to the AM and PM peak hours in comparison to the existing use and would contribute fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips to any driveway or off-site study area intersection. Due to the reduction in the number of peak hour trips, Project traffic would result in a reduction in traffic-related noise as compared to the traffic generated by the site’s existing land uses. Accordingly, Project traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 35) Conclusion
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 51 Environmental Checklist
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in generation of noise levels exceeding the standards established by the City of Corona, or applicable standards of other agencies. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities and off-site roadway and BNSF infrastructure related construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the FTA. However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 8-4 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G). Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA (as described in Subsection 8.5 of the Project’s NIA). (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 43)
Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 8-4 of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G) and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table 17, Project Construction Vibration Levels, presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 149 to 2,846 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to be 0.004 in/sec RMS and would remain below the City of Corona threshold of 0.05 in/sec RMS at all receiver locations, as shown on Table 17. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during the construction activities at the Project site. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 43) Table 17 Project Construction Vibration Levels
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the Project’s NIA (Technical Appendix G). 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 8-4. Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
3 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.050 Vibration. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-5)
Moreover, the impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction activities.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 44) PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 52 Environmental Checklist
With respect to vibration associated with long-term Project operations, Caltrans has produced a publication, entitled, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” and dated September 2013 (Caltrans, 2013). In this document, Caltrans notes the following:
“Vehicles traveling on a smooth roadway are rarely, if ever, the source of perceptible ground vibration.

However, discontinuities in roadway pavement often develop as the result of settling of pavement sections, cracking, and faulting. When this occurs, vehicles passing over the pavement discontinuities impart energy into the ground, generating vibration. In most cases, only heavy trucks, not automobiles, are the source of perceptible vibration. Trucks traveling over pavement discontinuities also often rattle and make noise, which tends to make the event more noticeable when the ground vibration generated may only be barely noticeable. (Caltrans, 2013, pp. 45-46)
“Because vibration from vehicle operations is almost always the result of pavement discontinuities, the solution is to smooth the pavement to eliminate the discontinuities. This step will eliminate perceptible vibration from vehicle operations in virtually all cases.” (Caltrans, 2013, p. 46) It is anticipated that all roadway surfaces on site and along roadways that would serve Project traffic would be maintained in a manner that there would be no discontinuities surfaces (e.g., potholes). Accordingly, vibration impacts associated with the Project’s long-term operations would be less than significant. c. Please refer to the analysis of Threshold a. As previously shown in Table 12 through Table 16, long-term operation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of noise levels that are below the City’s significance criteria at the nearest sensitive receptors. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. d. Please refer to the analysis of Threshold a. As previously shown in Table 10 and Table 11, near-term construction activities would result in the generation of noise levels that are below the City’s significance criteria at the nearest sensitive receptors. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant.
e. The nearest airport is the Corona Municipal Airport which is located approximately 3.6 miles to the northwest of the Project site. According to the ALUCP Policy Document for the Corona Municipal Airport, the Project site is located well outside of the 55 dBA CNEL contour for the Corona Municipal Airport. As indicated in Table N1 of the City’s General Plan, industrial land uses such as those proposed as part of the Project are considered to be “Clearly Compatible” with noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL (Corona, 2020a, Table N-1). Accordingly, the Project would not be exposed to excessive airport-related noise levels, and no impact would occur.

11. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Fire protection ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Police protection ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Schools ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Parks & recreation facilities ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Other public facilities or services ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion:
a. Fire prevention services are provided by the Corona Fire Department (CFD). The closest fire station to the Project area is CFD Fire Station No. 1, located at 540 Magnolia Avenue, or approximately 1.9 roadway miles southwest of the Project area (Google Earth, 2019). As part of the Project, the existing buildings and PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 53 Environmental Checklist
improvements on site would be demolished and replaced with two new industrial park/warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. CFD currently provides fire protection service to the existing uses at the Project site, and it is not expected that redevelopment of the Project site as proposed would result in a substantial increase in the site’s demand for fire protection services or facilities. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to Chapter 16.23 of the City’s Municipal Code. The amount of the required fee will be based on the proposed increase in building area as compared to the existing buildings on site. Payment of the DIF fee would assist the CFD in providing fire protection services within the City, and would ensure that funds are available for capital improvements, such as land/equipment purchases and fire station construction. Accordingly, Project-related impacts to fire protection services are evaluated as less than significant and no mitigation beyond payment of DIF fees would be required. b. Police protection services are provided by the Corona Police Department (CPD). The CPD Police station is located at 730 Public Safety Way, Corona, CA 92880, approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the Project site. As part of the Project, the existing buildings and improvements on site would be demolished and replaced with two new industrial park/warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. CPD currently provides police protection service to the existing uses at the Project site, and it is not expected that redevelopment of the Project site as proposed would result in an increase in the site’s demand for police protection services or facilities.

Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to Chapter 16.23 of the City’s Municipal Code. The amount of the required fee will be based on the proposed increase in building area as compared to the existing buildings on site. Payment of the DIF fee would assist the CPD in providing police protection services within the City, and would ensure that funds are available to ensure that the Project does not adversely affect CPD response times or services. Accordingly, Project-related impacts to police protection services are evaluated as less than significant and no mitigation beyond payment of DIF fees would be required.
c. School services in the Project Area are provided by the Corona-Norco Unified School District (CNUSD). As part of the Project, the existing buildings and improvements on site would be demolished and replaced with two new industrial park/warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. Because the Project does not include any residential uses, the Project would not directly result in an increase in demand for school services, and only would result in a nominal increase in the site’s potential indirect demand for school services associated with the projected increase in the number of employees on site. In addition, the Project would not directly cause or contribute to the need for new or expanded school facilities, and it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction of new or expanded school facilities until a specific proposal and design for the facility is prepared by the applicable school district, and an analysis of potential physical environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of new or expanded school facilities would be speculative in nature (see State CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Although it is not possible to identify physical environmental effects that may result from new or expanded school facilities, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute fees to the CNUSD in accordance with Chapter 16.26 of the City’s Municipal Code. Pursuant to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for project-related impacts to school services. Although the Project would not result in a direct increase in demand for school services, mandatory payment of school impact fees still would be required and would ensure that the Project’s impacts to school facilities and services would be less than significant. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation beyond payment of fees would be required.
d. As part of the Project, the existing buildings and improvements on site would be demolished and replaced with two new industrial park/warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. As the proposed Project would not include any residential uses, the Project would not create a direct demand for new or expanded park or recreational facilities. Although the Project is anticipated to result in an increase in the number of employees on site as compared to the existing uses on site, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to Chapter 16.23 of the City’s Municipal Code. The amount of the required fee will be based on the proposed increase in building area as compared to the existing buildings on PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 54 Environmental Checklist
site. Payment of the DIF fee would assist the City in acquiring and improving parkland within the City to meet the demands of City residents. Accordingly, Project-related impacts to parks and recreational facilities are evaluated as less than significant and no mitigation beyond payment of DIF fees would be required. e. As part of the Project, the existing buildings and improvements on site would be demolished and replaced with two new industrial park/warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. As the proposed Project would not include any residential uses, the Project would not create a direct demand for new or expanded library services or facilities. Although the Project is anticipated to result in an increase in the number of employees on site as compared to the existing uses on site, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to Chapter 16.23 of the City’s Municipal Code. The amount of the required fee will be based on the proposed increase in building area as compared to the existing buildings on site. Payment of the DIF fee would assist the City in providing library services and facilities for City residents. Accordingly, Project-related impacts to libraries are evaluated as less than significant and no mitigation beyond payment of DIF fees would be required.

12. UTILITIES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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. The City of Corona Utilities Department is the primary provider of sewer and sanitation services to Corona, and no septic systems or alternative wastewater treatment systems are proposed as part of the Project. Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, the City is subject to the NPDES permit program. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for enforcing the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements as established under the applicable NPDES Permit. The NPDES permit sets forth discharge prohibitions including effluent limitation, receiving water limitations, monitoring mechanisms, and penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of the permit.

Accordingly, the City is required to comply with all applicable waste discharge requirements. The Project’s contribution of wastewater to the City’s treatment facilities would be consistent with all applicable waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the Project would have no potential to result in exceedances of the applicable wastewater treatment requirements established by the RWQCB. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. The City of Corona Utilities Department provides potable water service and wastewater service to the Project site. Implementation of the Project would demolish the existing improvements and redevelop the site with two industrial park/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 334,520 s.f. of building area. Potable water to the site would be provided via proposed on-site water lines that would connect to the existing public 10-inch water main located beneath Magnolia Avenue. Water service for fire hydrants also would connect to the existing 10- inch water main. The Project also would include the construction of internal wastewater lines that connect to an existing 18-inch sewer main located beneath Magnolia Avenue. Proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would entail trenching and exposing existing lines on-site for connection, and installing new lines, and a break-in connection to the existing mainline. No off-site sewer main construction or upsizing would be required to accommodate the Project. Impacts associated with the Project’s proposed water and sewer service PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 55 Environmental Checklist
connections are inherent to the Project’s construction phase, and have been evaluated throughout this IS/MND accordingly. There would be no impacts specifically related to the Project’s water and sewer service connections that have not already been addressed by this IS/MND. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Runoff generated on the Project site would be collected by a system of gutters and inlets that would discharge through a storm drain system into the existing 24” RCP pipes that outlet to the Temescal Wash. No off-site drainage-related improvements are required for the proposed Project. Impacts associated with the on-site drainage facilities have been evaluated throughout this IS/MND. There would be no impacts specifically related to the Project’s proposed drainage infrastructure that have not already been addressed by this IS/MND.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
d. The City of Corona provides water services to the Project site. The City has adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that assesses water supply reliability and demonstrates that the City would have sufficient water supplies during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive dry years projected through 2045 (Corona, 2021, p. ES-2). The UWMP bases its growth projections in part on the City’s General Plan land use plan, and projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan land use plan are inherently consistent with the growth assumptions of the UWMP. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s adopted “Mixed Use II: Industrial/Commercial (MU-II)” land use designation. Furthermore, the existing uses on the Project site generate a demand for potable water associated with the on-going manufacturing activities at the site. Thus, and due to the increase in the amount of building area under the proposed Project, the Project only would result in an incremental increase in demand for potable water as compared to existing conditions.

Accordingly, there would be sufficient water supplies to serve the Project, and impacts would be less than significant.
e. As previously noted, the City of Corona provides sewer and sanitation services to the Project area. The City of Corona operates three water reclamation facilities (WRFs) that treat existing flows from residential, commercial, and industrial users. The three WRFs have a total treatment capacity of 15.5 million gallons per day (mgd) with an ultimate capacity of 18.0 mgd, and receive approximately 14.0 mgd of wastewater requiring treatment. Thus, the WRFs have a current excess treatment capacity of approximately 1.5 mgd. (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Table 3-11 and pp. 3-39 and 3-40) The Project would involve the demolition of the existing buildings on site (approximately 165,250 s.f. of existing building area), and the construction and operation of two light industrial buildings with a total building area of 334,520 s.f. Thus, the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for wastewater treatment associated with the proposed increase of 169,270 s.f. of building area. As the City’s General Plan and associated EIR do not specify wastewater generation rates within the City of Corona, wastewater generation rates were taken from the EIR prepared for Riverside County’s 2015 General Plan Update, which specifies a sewer generation rate for industrial land uses of approximately 1,500 gpd/acre (Riverside County, 2015, Table 4.19-BJ). Even without consideration of the existing land uses on site, the Project would only generate a demand for up to 24,900 gpd of wastewater requiring treatment (16.6 acres x 1,500 gpd/acre = 24,900 gpd). The Project’s wastewater treatment demand would represent only 1.7% of the existing available treatment capacity at the WRFs. Additionally, two of the WRFs are planned for future upgrades that would increase the City’s wastewater treatment capacity to approximately 18.0 mgd. Therefore, it can be concluded that the City of Corona would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the Project’s projected increase in sewer flows. Impacts would be less than significant. f. The City is served by a contract waste hauler who utilizes the County’s landfill system, which has sufficient capacity to serve the Project’s solid waste. The closest landfill to the Project site is the El Sobrante Landfill operated by Waste Management, located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Rd, Corona, CA 92883. The El Sobrante Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 209,910,000 cubic yards (cy), a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 as of 2018. The El Sobrante Landfill allows for a maximum daily disposal rate of 16,054 tons per day. The El Sobrante Landfill received 10,710 tons per day (tpd) on average in 2021, resulting in an excess daily capacity of 5,344 tpd. (CalRecycle, 2016)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 56 Environmental Checklist
Demolition of the existing improvements on site and construction of the Project would result in the short-term generation of a variety of solid waste materials that could be disposed of at a landfill. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) has published waste generation rates associated with demolition and construction, which indicates that non-residential demolition generates approximately 158 pounds of solid waste per s.f. of building area, while non-residential building construction generates approximately 4.34 pounds of solid waste per s.f. of building area. Thus, the demolition of the existing buildings on site is expected to generate approximately 13,372 tons of solid waste ([169,270 s.f. x 158 lbs./s.f.] ÷ 2,000 = 13,372.3 tons), while construction of the proposed buildings is expected to generate approximately 725.9 tons of solid waste ([334,520 sf x 4.34 lbs/s.f.]/2,000 lbs/ton = 725.9 tons). (EPA, 2009, p. 10 and Table 2-4) California Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that a minimum of 50% of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 6,686 tons of solid waste during the demolition phase and 363 tons of solid waste during the construction of the proposed buildings. The Project’s demolition phase is expected to take approximately 20 working days, while building construction is anticipated to take approximately 180 days. Thus, the Project would generate approximately 334.3 tpd during demolition and approximately 2.0 tpd during the building construction phase.

The Project’s solid waste generation during the demolition phase would represent approximately 6.3% of the excess daily capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill, and the Project’s solid waste generation during the building construction phase would represent approximately 0.09% of the excess daily capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill. Accordingly, the El Sobrante Landfill would have sufficient daily and total capacity to handle solid waste generated during the Project’s construction and demolition phases, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 lbs of waste per 100 s.f. of industrial building obtained from CalRecycle, long-term, on-going operation of the Project would generate up to approximately 2.38 tons ([334,520 sf x {1.42 lbs/100sf}]/2,000 lbs/ton = 2.38 tons) of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2006).

Additionally, according to AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project’s solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills; therefore, the Project would generate approximately 1.19 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfilling (CA Legislative Information, 2015). Although the existing use would generate waste which could be deducted from the solid waste generated by the Project, an increase of approximately 1.19 tons per day would represent only 0.02% of the excess daily capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill. Accordingly, the El Sobrante Landfill would have sufficient daily and total capacity to handle solid waste generated under long-term operating conditions, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. g. AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. SB 2202 clarified that local governments shall continue to diver 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code § 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. (CA Legislative Information, 2005) Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant of the Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week (CA Legislative Information, 2011). The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 57 Environmental Checklist

13. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Scenic vista or highway ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Degrade visual character of site & surroundings ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Light or glare ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Scenic resources (forest land, historic buildings within state scenic highway
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion:
a. According to Figure 5.1-1 (Scenic Corridors) of the City’s General Plan EIR, I-15 and SR-91 are designated as “State Eligible Scenic Corridors,” while the nearest “City Designated” scenic corridor is the segment of Magnolia Avenue west of Rimpau Avenue, approximately 0.4-mile southwest of the Project site. There are no officiallydesignated scenic highways within the Project’s viewshed. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing buildings on site, which were built as early as the 1950s, and the construction of two new, modern industrial park/warehouse buildings. The Project’s application materials include a number of design features to ensure that the site is redeveloped in a manner that is not aesthetically offensive, including details relating to architecture and landscaping. As compared to the existing conditions of the Project site, the Project would result in improved aesthetic conditions due to the introduction of extensive areas of landscaping at the Project perimeter, screen walls in appropriate locations, and modern building elevations. Accordingly, Project impacts to scenic highways would be less than significant.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, prominent scenic vistas in the City include the Prado Basin (primarily from Sierra del Oro), Santa Ana Mountains (primarily from the I-15/SR-91 freeway interchange), foothills visible from major north-south streets south of Ontario Avenue, and the San Gabriel Mountains (primarily visible from the higher elevations south of Ontario Avenue) (Corona, 2019, pp. 5.1-9 and 5.1-10). The Project would result in the demolition of the existing structures on site, which include two-story elements, and replacement with two buildings designed for industrial park/warehouse uses with limited areas of mezzanine space. BNSF-related cross-arms, polies, and other vertical features in and adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way would be replaced with comparable features. Thus, as compared to existing conditions, the Project would not result in a substantial change to scenic vistas available within the City. Furthermore, the Project site is not located within any of the areas identified as providing views of scenic vistas within the City. Accordingly, Project impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold a., as compared to the existing development on site the Project would result in improved aesthetic conditions due to the introduction of extensive areas of landscaping at the Project perimeter, screen walls in appropriate locations, and modern building elevations. Accordingly, the Project would not degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Future development on site would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code. Municipal Code Chapter 17.76 ensures that lighting in parking areas is designed and arranged to minimize the effects of spill light, and Chapter 17.86 indicates that all exterior lighting be directed downward to minimize spillover onto adjacent properties, sensitive land uses, and open space areas. In addition, the Project’s application materials include a photometric plan (Sheet A 1.4), which demonstrates compliance with Municipal Code Chapters 17.76 and 17.86. Furthermore, none of the Project’s proposed building materials would consist of reflective materials, except for the proposed windows, which would not be mirrored and would have similar low-potential glare characteristics as do other glass windows on buildings in the Project vicinity. The proposed Project does not include any components that would generate substantial amounts of reflective surfaces. Accordingly, Project impacts due to light and glare would be less than significant.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 58 Environmental Checklist
d. Under existing conditions, the Project site is fully developed with existing light industrial manufacturing buildings.

The Project site does not contain any scenic resources under existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not impact any scenic resources, and no impact would occur.

14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Historical resource ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Archaeological resource ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Paleontological resource or unique geologic feature ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d. Disturb human remains ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion:

Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc (BFSA) performed a Cultural Resources Search with data acquired from the Eastern Information Center located at the University of California Riverside for the Project site on February 10, 2022 (BFSA, 2022a). On June 16, 2022, BFSA prepared a Historic Summary Memorandum for the Project to provide recommendations regarding the previously identified cultural and historic resources (BFSA, 2022b). The records search results and Historic Summary Memorandum are included as Technical Appendix I1 and I2, respectively, and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein. Additionally, BFSA also performed a Paleontological Resources Assessment (PRA) for the Project site, the results of which are included as Technical Appendix I3 (BFSA, 2022c).
a. According to the Cultural Resources Records Search, 10 historic built environment resources were recorded within one-half mile of the Project. One of the previously recorded resources (Site P-33-020202) includes the entirety of the Project site. Site P-33-020202 is characterized as a circa 1955 to circa 1960 six-building industrial-commercial complex with includes the addresses 1375 Magnolia Avenue and 1001 East El Camino Avenue. The resource was recorded, along with the majority of resources identified in the search radius, in 2011 as part of a proposed electrical substation and transmission line corridor identified as the “Circle City Substation Project.” Based on the site record, Site P-33-020202 was recorded as the reconnaissance level and was not evaluated for inclusion within the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). A search of the resource addresses failed to identify the property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Index, the CRHR, or the Office of Historic Places, Built Environment Resources Directory. (BFSA, 2022a, p. 1) In 2021, CRM Tech prepared both an Archaeological Survey Report and a Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that included the entirety of the Project site. These studies identified and evaluated one previously recorded resource (P-33-020202) located within the project boundaries and 31 resources within one mile of the project. No other resources were identified within the Project footprint. (BFSA, 2022b, p. 1) Site P-33-020202 consists of an industrial-commercial complex of six structures located at 1375 Magnolia Avenue built between 1954 and 1966 as part of the Rich Manufacturing Company of California (RMCC). The buildings were utilized by RMCC to produce fire hydrants until the company was absorbed into the Clow Valve Company in 1972. The HRER summarized: (BFSA, 2022b, p. 1) “[Extensive background research] produced no evidence that this industrial-commercial complex or any of the buildings in it is closely associated with any persons or events of recognized significance in national, state, or local history, or that they embody the work of a prominent architect, designer, or builder.” (BFSA, 2022b, pp. 1-2)
In addition, the HRER concluded:

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 59 Environmental Checklist
“The buildings in the complex are typically utilitarian in character, being simple and unpretentious in design, construction, and materials, except for the typical Mid-century Modernist elements observed in the 1966- 1967 addition. They are products of standard practices for buildings of similar nature at the time, and none of them stands out as an important example of any style, type, period, region, or construction method.

Furthermore, dating to a period in history that is very well documented, the buildings demonstrate little potential for any important data for historical research. (BFSA, 2022b, p. 2) “The neighborhood in which the complex is located, with a long history of light industrial development on the edge of the Corona town center, is now predominantly modern in character with large warehouses and commercial centers constructed over the past 25 years far outnumbering buildings of historical origin. As such, this older complex no longer has the potential to be considered a contributing element of a historic district. Based on these considerations, the industrial-commercial complex at 1375 Magnolia Avenue/1001 El Camino Avenue does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] or the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR], nor does any of the buildings in the complex individually”. (BFSA, 2022b, p. 2)
The resources located outside of the Project site, but within a one-mile radius of its boundaries, consist of three prehistoric sites containing bedrock milling features and lithic artifacts, one isolated, possible obsidian core, and 27 historic resources, including, “the Riverside Lower Canal, the Corona City Park, the Corona Founders Monument, an abandoned stone quarry, and a refuse dump, but residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings constituted by far the largest group, numbering 22 in total”. (BFSA, 2022b, p. 2) The review of the previous studies conducted for the property resulted in the formulation of the conclusion that development of the property would not impact any significant cultural resources. None of the structures located within Site P-33-020202 were found eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP, nor do they appear eligible for listing on the Corona Register as local landmarks due to their lack of association with any persons or events significant in local history, as well as their utilitarian architectural styles and standard construction. As a result, none of the buildings nor the site as a whole qualify under CEQA as “Historical Resources” and therefore, no known significant cultural resources would be impacted by the redevelopment of the Project site. (BFSA, 2022b, pp. 2-3)
Although no known significant cultural resources would be impacted by the Project, the current status of the property may have affected the potential to discover any surface artifacts. Given that the current development within the Project site might have masked archaeological deposits and the fact that several cultural resources are recorded within a one-mile radius of the project, there is a potential that buried historical resource deposits are present within the Project boundaries. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project be allowed to proceed with the implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the property. (BFSA, 2022b) With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM-CUL 2, generally requiring a cultural resource monitoring program during grading activities, impacts to historical resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. b. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a., above, the Project site is fully developed under existing conditions, and no archaeological resources have been recorded within the Project boundaries. Although no archaeological resources are known to exist on site, there is a potential for archaeological resources to be present beneath the site’s surface. If present, Project grading activities could have the potential to result in impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources, which would represent a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM-CUL 2, generally requiring a cultural resource monitoring program during grading activities, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 60 Environmental Checklist
c. Based on the results of the Project’s PRA, the Project site contains young alluvial channel deposits, which are assigned an age of Holocene and late Pleistocene. Pleistocene-aged alluvial channel deposits underlie the surficial younger, Holocene alluvial channel deposits. However, the depth of the age transition from Holocene to late Pleistocene within these deposits is unknown. City of Corona guidelines assign a “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity to these deposits, reflecting their variation in geologic age, with the upper, Holocene portion having a low sensitivity, and the deeper, Pleistocene portion of the formation having a high sensitivity.

Projects impacting formations with a high sensitivity or “low-to-high” sensitivity are subject to mitigation monitoring requirements by the City of Corona. However, City of Corona guidelines do not provide information regarding depth(s) differentiating the ages within geologic formations assigned to the “low-to-high” sensitivity rating. A depth of 10 feet is suggested by the Project’s PRA for the Holocene-Pleistocene age transition. Based on the results of the analysis, the Project has the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources that may be present beneath the surface of the Project site. (BFSA, 2022c, p. 4) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3, which requires implementation of a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP), would ensure that site grading activities are monitored, and that any paleontological resources that are uncovered during site grading operations would be appropriately treated. Implementation of the PRMMP, as required by Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3, would reduce Project impacts to paleontological resources to less-than-significant levels.
d. 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. 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. 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. Notwithstanding the requirements of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, due to the potential to discover buried human remains during Project construction activities (i.e., grading), a potentially significant impact would occur and mitigation would be required.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, requiring compliance with California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to human remains to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Retain a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer/Project Applicant shall retain and enter into a monitoring and mitigation service contract with a qualified Archaeologist (“Archaeological Monitor”) for mitigation monitoring services, and to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP). At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, copy of the agreement between the Developer/Project Applicant shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 61 Environmental Checklist
• A CRMP shall be prepared to guide the procedures and protocols of an archaeological mitigation monitoring program that shall be implemented during all onsite and offsite grounddisturbing 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 ground-disturbing activities. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the Archaeological Monitor determines that the overall sensitivity of the Project area has been reduced from high to low as a result of mitigation monitoring. 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 Native American Notification: In the event that a significant archaeological resource is discovered during Project construction, the qualified monitoring 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. In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s), Native American Monitor(s) have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. T 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. 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.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 62 Environmental Checklist
• 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 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, 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)).

15. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Williamson Act contract ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion:
a. The Williamson Act is a Statewide mechanism for the preservation of agricultural land and open space land.

The Act provides a comprehensive method for local governments to protect farmland and open space by allowing lands in agricultural use to be placed under contract (agricultural preserve) between local government and landowner. According to mapping information available from Riverside County GIS, the Project site and surrounding areas are not under a Williamson Act contract and are not located within any agricultural preserves (RCIT, n.d.). Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 63 Environmental Checklist
b. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (CDC, 2018). The “Urban and Built-Up Land” classification describes land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel (CDC, 2018). The nearest location of Farmland to the Project site is a parcel containing Prime Farmland that is located approximately 1.8 miles to the southwest. Due to the site’s distance from designated Farmland, the Project does not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.

The Project site is currently zoned under the Corona Magnolia Specific Plan (SP01-002) for Business Park (BP). The nearest land zoned for agricultural use is located approximately 1.66 miles southwest of the Project site. As such, the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. No impacts would occur.

16. GREENHOUSE GAS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gases ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion:

In order to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a Project-specific technical study was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc, entitled, “Magnolia Avenue Business Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis” (herein, “GHGA”), dated July 26, 2022, and included as IS/MND Technical Appendix K (Urban Crossroads, 2022d). Refer to Section 2 of the Project’s GHGA for a discussion of Global Climate Change (GCC), GHGs, GHG emissions inventory, environmental effects of GCC, and applicable regulations related to GHGs, and refer to Section 3 of the GHGA for a discussion of methodology and modeling inputs used to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts due to GHG emissions.
a. The City of Corona has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the City of Corona and numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 39-40) Construction GHG Emissions Analysis
Project construction actvities would generate carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions. For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The amortized construction emissions are presented in Table 18, Amortized Annual Construction Emissions. As shown, construction activities are estimated to produce approximately 33.08 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 42)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 64 Environmental Checklist
Table 18 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions
(Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3-3)
Operational GHG Emissions Analysis
As the Project site already is fully developed and generates GHG emissions under existing conditions, an analysis has been conducted in order to compare the Project’s total GHG emissions to the site’s existing level of GHG emissions. GHG emissions from the existing development on site are summarized in Table 19, Emissions from Existing Development. As shown, the existing uses on site are estimated to produce approximately 3,234.58 MTCO2e per year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 46) Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from area source emissions, energy source emissions, mobile source emissions, on-site cargo handling equipment emissions, water supply, treatment, and distribution, solid waste, and refrigerants, as discussed in Subsection

3.6 of the GHGA. The annual GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 20, Project GHG Emissions. As shown, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of 5,815.33 MTCO2e per year. Taking into consideration of the site’s existing land uses and GHGs, the Project would result in a net increase of 2,580.75 MTCO2e per year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 46-47) Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would result in a net total of approximately 2,580.75 MTCO2 per year, and the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Thus, the Project would not have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Table 19 Emissions from Existing Development
(Urban Crossroads, 2022d,)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 65 Environmental Checklist
Table 20 Project GHG Emissions
(Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3-6)
b. Pursuant to Section 15604.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. Plans, policies, and regulations related to GHGs and that are applicable to the Project include Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (as identified through compliance with the California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2022 Scoping Plan) also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2022 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32 and SB 32. Provided below is an analysis of the Project’s consistency with SB 32/2022 Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP.

SB 32/2022 Scoping Plan Consistency
On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan as well as the requirements set forth by AB 1279, which directs the state to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Scoping Plan scenario to do this is to “deploy a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes, Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor.” The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (CAP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.

The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project would comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 66 Environmental Checklist
Amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-andTrade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Furthermore, and as indicated above, the Project’s level of GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. As such, the Project would not result in a conflict with the GHG reduction mandates established by SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan. Accordingly, based on the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project would not conflict with AB 32 or SB 32, and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 47-48)
Consistency with the City’s CAP
As previously stated, the Project would result in a net total of approximately 2,580.75 MTCO2 per year and would not exceed the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus Project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and would therefore comply with the City’s GHG policies under the CAP. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s CAP and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 53) Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:
a. The Project site is fully developed under existing conditions, and no resources that are 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), are present on the site. The project is subject to tribal consultation under AB 52. The purpose of AB 52 is to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project components have information available, early in the planning process to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Planning and Development Department initiated the process by notifying the local Native American tribes of the proposed project through a letter of transmittal dated June 6, 2022. The Planning and Development Department received written response from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on July 12, 2022, requesting to be provided with copies of existing documents pertaining to the project including but not limited to the archaeological site records. On September 30, 2022, after review of the Cityprovided documents and internal review of their documents, the Rincon Band had no information to share about specific Tribal Cultural Resources within the project area; however, they stated that there is always potential for subsurface materials to be disturbed during ground-disturbing activities and requested that protocols be established to guide processes for inadvertent discoveries. Compliance with the mitigation measures in the Cultural Resources section (MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-4) would reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 67 Environmental Checklist
Resources to less than significant should any resources be discovered during the Project’s ground-disturbing construction activities.
b. The project is subject to tribal consultation under AB 52. The purpose of AB 52 is to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project components have information available, early in the planning process to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Planning and Development Department initiated the process by notifying the local Native American tribes of the proposed project through a letter of transmittal dated June 6, 2022. The Planning and Development Department received written response from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on July 12, 2022, requesting to be provided with copies of existing documents pertaining to the project including but not limited to the archaeological site records. On September 30, 2022, after review of the City-provided documents and internal review of their documents, the Rincon Band had no information to share about specific Tribal Cultural Resources within the project area; however, they stated that there is always potential for subsurface materials to be disturbed during ground-disturbing activities and requested that protocols be established to guide processes for inadvertent discoveries. Compliance with the mitigation measures in the Cultural Resources section (MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-4) would reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant should any resources be discovered during the Project’s ground-disturbing construction activities.

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:
a. As indicated throughout the analysis in this IS/MND (refer specifically to the analysis of Issues 7, 14, and 17), assuming incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habit of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or 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. Therefore, with mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the Project have been evaluated throughout this IS/MND, which concludes that such impacts would not occur, would be less than significant, or would be reduced to below a level of significance with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified herein and included in the Project’s conditions of approval. For example, for the issue of Air Quality (IS/MND Issue 5), the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively-considerable air quality impact. Thus, the analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts inherently addresses potential cumulatively-considerable air quality impacts, and shows that Project-related cumulativelyconsiderable impacts to air quality would be less than significant. As indicated in the analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions(IS/MND Issue 16), projects that are consistent with the City’s CAP are considered to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact on GHG emissions. Because the Project would generate fewer than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr of GHG emissions, the Project’s impacts due to GHGs would be less-thancumulatively considerable. Furthermore, the analysis of Project impacts due to noise (IS/MND Issue 10) demonstrates that the Project’s construction, operational, and transportation-related noise impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified herein and included PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 68 Environmental Checklist
in the Project’s conditions of approval, the Project would not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
c. The Project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evaluated throughout this IS/MND (e.g., Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Noise, etc.). Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these adverse effects to the maximum feasible extent.

There are no components of the proposed Project that could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings that are not already evaluated and disclosed throughout this IS/MND. Accordingly, no additional impacts would occur.
d. The Project entails the proposed redevelopment of an existing property occupied with several manufacturing and distribution buildings with two new modern industrial park/warehouse buildings. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in the sacrifice of the City’s long-term goals for short-term objectives.

Accordingly, no impact would occur.

19. WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route.

Additionally, there are no emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans in effect in the local area.

As part of the Project, no improvements are proposed to El Camino Avenue; however, Magnolia Avenue along the Project site’s frontage would be improved. Specifically, the Project Applicant would dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Magnolia Avenue. Improvements to Magnolia Avenue would include the construction of a 14-foot-wide median, travel lanes along the northern side of the roadway ranging in width from 46 to 53 feet (with the additional width occurring at the approach to El Camino Avenue), curb and gutter, and a 12-foot-wide landscaped parkway with a curb-adjacent sidewalk. During construction, the Project Applicant would be conditioned by the City to require the implementation of a temporary traffic control plan that complies with the applicable requirements of the CMUTCD, which would preclude potential construction-related impacts to emergency access during improvements to Magnolia Avenue. In addition, during construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be required to be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. Furthermore, improvements planned as part of the Project are not anticipated to adversely affect traffic operations in the local area, including planned improvements outside of the travel lanes of El Camino Avenue and planned improvements within Magnolia Avenue. As part of the City’s review process for future implementing developments (e.g., grading and building permits), the City would review the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site is adequate PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 69 Environmental Checklist
for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.
b. According to Figure 5-14 of the Technical Background Report prepared for the City’s General Plan, the Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and are not subject to wildland fire hazards (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Figure 5-14). Due to the developed nature of the Project vicinity, the Project has no potential to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire as a result of slope, prevailing wind, and other factors. No impact would occur. c. According to Figure 5-14 of the Technical Background Report prepared for the City’s General Plan, the Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and are not subject to wildland fire hazards (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Figure 5-14). Due to the developed nature of the Project vicinity, the Project would not 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. No impact would occur. d. According to Figure 5-14 of the Technical Background Report prepared for the City’s General Plan, the Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and are not subject to wildland fire hazards (Corona, 2020a, Technical Background Report, Figure 5-14). Due to the developed nature of the Project vicinity, the Project would not 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 would occur.

20. ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
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:

In order to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts due to energy demand, a site-specific technical report was prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This report is entitled, “Magnolia Avenue Business Center Energy Analysis” (herein, “EA”), is dated July 26, 2022, and is included as IS/MND Technical Appendix J (Urban Crossroads, 2022c).

Please refer to the EA for a discussion of existing conditions, a discussion of applicable regulatory requirements, and a description of the methodology used to estimate the Project’s energy demand. a. The Project would result in a demand for energy resources during both construction and long-term operations.

Each is discussed below.

Construction Energy Demand Analysis
The estimated power cost of on-site electricity usage during the construction of the Project is assumed to be approximately $16,787.02. Additionally, based on the assumed power cost, it is estimated that the total electricity usage during construction, after full Project build-out, is calculated to be approximately 127,445 kWh. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38)
Construction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 59,060 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 70 Environmental Checklist
proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38) CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best available control measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38) Construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 19,039 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor trips (Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks [MHDs] and Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks [HHDs]) would total approximately 26,804 gallons. Diesel fuel would be supplied by City and regional commercial vendors. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport, and use of construction materials. The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) released by the California Energy Commission (CEC) has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39) Operational Energy Demand Analysis
Transportation Energy Demands
Annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the Project would result in a net fuel demand of 130,303 gallons of fuel. Fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Ed., 2017) and CalEEMod. As such, Project operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other industrial uses. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39)
It should be noted that the State strategy for the transportation sector for medium and heavy-duty trucks is focused on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks.

This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector where both per-capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency are forecasted to be needed to achieve the overall state emissions reductions goals. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39) Heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks are being tested this year and SCAQMD is looking to integrate this new technology into large-scale truck operations. The following state strategies reduce GHG emissions from the medium and heavy-duty trucks: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39)
• CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs through the transition to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39) • CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25% by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 39)
• CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions focus on establishment of emissions PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 71 Environmental Checklist
standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling. While the focus of Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 39-40)
• CARB’s On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation (2010) requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40) • CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40) The proposed Project would implement project design features that would facilitate the accessibility, parking, and loading of trucks on site. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access.

Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and City requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40)
On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas. On-site cargo handling equipment used by the Project would result in the consumption of approximately 9,284 gallons of natural gas per year. On-site equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed operations that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project on-site equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40) Facility Energy Demands
Net Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at: a net increase of 2,369,421 kBTU/year of natural gas and a net decrease of 33,562,949 kWh/year of electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCalGas; electricity would be supplied by SCE. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40) Lastly, the Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 40)
Conclusion
As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 72 Environmental Checklist
uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b. The Project’s consistency with the applicable State and local plans related to energy consumption is discussed below.

Consistency with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) ISTEA promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 22)
Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 43)
Consistency with Transportation Equity Act-21 (TEA-21)
TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 22)
The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA‐21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 43)
Consistency with Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) The 2021 IEPR was adopted February 22, 2022, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2021 IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. Additionally, the 2021 IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 22-23)
Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 43)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 73 Environmental Checklist
Additionally, the Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 43) Consistency with State of California Energy Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23) The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44) Consistency with California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods.

CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that will be effective on January 1, 2023. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23) The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and will become effective on January 1, 2023. As the Project building construction is anticipated in 2023, it is presumed that the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time. Therefore, the Project is would not result in a significant impact on energy resources as the proposed Project would be subject to Title 24 standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44)
Consistency with California Code Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen CCR, Title 24, Part 11: CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2020.

The proposed Project would be subject to CALGreen standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44) Consistency with AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and light-duty trucks). Although aimed at reducing GHG emissions, specifically, a co-benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel efficiency and consequently a reduction in fuel consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23) AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards.

No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44)
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 74 Environmental Checklist
Consistency with Renewable Portfolio Standard
First established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 33% of total retail sales by 2020. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24) California’s RPS is not applicable to the Project as it is a Statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44)
Consistency with SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24) • Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24) • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24)
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24) The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 44) Conclusion
As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with any of the State or local for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

21. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Earlier analysis may be used when one or more of the environmental effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063).

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
• City of Corona, 2019. Corona General Plan Technical Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2018081039. December 2019. Available on-line at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17290/637122799157100000 • Riverside County, 2015. County of Riverside, Volume 1: Draft Program EIR No. 521 (State Clearinghouse No. 2009041065). February 2015. Available for public review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 75 Environmental Checklist

22. REFERENCES
Cited As Reference
ALUC, 2004 Airport Land Use Commission, 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. October 2004. Accessed July 25, 2022.

Available online: https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/11- %20Vol%201%20Corona%20Municipal.pdf
BFSA, 2022a Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2022a. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the Corona Magnolia Project, City of Corona, California. February 11, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix I1.

BFSA, 2022b Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2022b. Historical Summary for the Corona Magnolia Project, City of Corona, California. June 16, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix I2.

BFSA, 2022c Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2022c. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Corona Magnolia Project, City of Corona, Riverside County, California. June 16, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix I3.

BNSF, 2012 BNSF Engineering Instructions, 2012. Accessed February 5, 2024. Available online: Engineering_Instructions_24_Construction.pdf (bnsfcontractor.com) CA Legislative
Information, 2005
California Legislative Information, 2005. Public Resources Code Section 42911. 2005. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-public-resourcescode/division-30-waste-management/part-3-state-programs/chapter-18-californiasolid-waste-reuse-and-recycling-access-act-of/article-3-ordinances/section-42911- local-agencies-required-to-adopt-ordinance-adequate-areas-required-for-issuanceof-building-permit CA Legislative
Information, 2011
California Legislative Information, 2011. Assembly Bill 341. 2011. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml CA Legislative
Information, 2015
California Legislative Information, 2015. Assembly Bill No. 939. 2015. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB93 9 CalRecycle, 2006 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2006. Accessed June 15, 2022. Available online:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates CalRecycle, 2016 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2016. Accessed June 15, 2022. Available online:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2256?siteID=2402 Caltrans, 2013 California Department of Transportation, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual. September 2013. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34120/Caltrans-2013- construction-vibration-PDF
CDC, 2018 California Department of Conservation, 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. 2018. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 76 Environmental Checklist
CDC, 2019 California Department of Conservation, 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. 2019. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/
CGS, n.d. California Geological Survey, n.d. Mineral Land Classification Map. No date.

Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SR_143
Corona, 2002 City of Corona, 2002. Corona Magnolia Specific Plan SP01-002. September 2002.

Accessed April 11, 2023. Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1914/636124331794830 000
Corona, 2019 City of Corona, 2019. Corona General Plan Technical Update. 2019. Accessed April 11, 2023. Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17290/63712279915710 0000
Corona, 2020a City of Corona, 2020a. 2020-2040 General Plan. 2020. Accessed April 11, 2023.

Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17292/63739664843597 0000
Corona, 2021 City of Corona, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 16, 2021.

Accessed April 11, 2023. Available online:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/7212323844/FINAL%20Co rona%202020%20UWMP%20-%20Vol%201%20%286-28-2021%29.pdf
EarthCon, 2020 EarthCon Consultants, CA, Inc., 2020. Corrective Measures Implementation Plan.

March 26, 2020. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F3.

EarthCon, 2021a EarthCon Consultants, CA, Inc., 2021a. Soil Management Plan. July 23, 2021.

Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F2.

EarthCon, 2021b EarthCon Consultants, CA, Inc., 2021b. Operations and Maintenance Plan. June 18, 2021. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F7.

EarthCon, 2021c EarthCon Consultants, CA, Inc, 2021c. PCB Soil Investigation Report. October 29, 2021. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F8.

EarthCon, 2022 EarthCon Consultants, CA, Inc., 2022. Corrective Measures Implementation Report. April 1, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F4.

ELMT, 2022 ELMT Consulting, 2022. Biological Due Diligence for the Proposed Corona Magnolia PA 5 Project Located in the City of Corona, Riverside County, California.

June 27, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix E.

EPA, 2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009. Accessed June 15, 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017- 09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. August 28, 2008. Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Google Earth, 2019 Google Earth, 2019. Imagery Date 2019. Accessed July 25, 2022.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 77 Environmental Checklist
HMC, 2023a Hazards Management Consulting, 2023a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

January 12, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F1.

HMC, 2023b Hazards Management Consulting, 2023b. Clarification of the Upcoming Soil Removal and Soil Management Plan for the Former Clow Facility Located at 1375 Magnolia Avenue Corona California (Site)-rev1. February 2, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F6.

KWC, 2023a KWC Engineers, 2023a. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. October 13, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix B2.

KWC, 2023b KWC Engineers, 2023b. Preliminary Drainage Report. October 13, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix B1.

Petra, 2022 Petra Geosciences, 2022. Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation.

December 9, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix A3.

Petra, 2023a Petra Geosciences, 2023a. Addendum to Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Magnolia Avenue Business Center, 16.5-Acre Site at 1375 Magnolia Avenue, City of Corona, Riverside County, California. January 26, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix A1.

Petra, 2023b Petra Geosciences, 2023b. Geotechnical Response to City of Corona Plan Check Comment No. 9, 2nd Review Letter for Precise Plans (PP2022-003), Magnolia Avenue Business Center, 1375 Magnolia Avenue, City of Corona, Riverside County, California. February 17, 2023. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix A2.

RCIT, n.d. Riverside County Information Technology GIS, n.d. Accessed July 25, 2022.

Available online: https://rcitgis-countyofriverside.hub.arcgis.com/ Riverside County, 2015 County of Riverside, 2015. Volume 1: Draft Program EIR No. 521. February 2015.

Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/D EIR%20No.%20521.pdf
RWQCB, 2019 Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. 2019.

Accessed July 25, 2022. Available online:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ Urban Crossroads,
2022a
Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Air Quality Impact Analysis. July 26, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix C.

Urban Crossroads,
2022b
Urban Crossroads, 2022b. Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. July 26, 2022.

Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix D.

Urban Crossroads,
2022c
Urban Crossroads, 2022c. Energy Analysis. July 26, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix J.

Urban Crossroads,
2022d
Urban Crossroads, 2022d. Greenhouse Gas Analysis. July 26, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix K.

Urban Crossroads,
2022e
Urban Crossroads, 2022e. Noise Impact Analysis. February 14, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix G.

Urban Crossroads, 2022f Urban Crossroads, 2022f. Magnolia Avenue Business Center Trip Generation Assessment. February 1, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix H1.

PP2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 78 Environmental Checklist
Urban Crossroads,
2022g
Urban Crossroads, 2022g. 1375 Magnolia Avenue Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. January 13, 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix H2.

WSP, 2022 WSP, 2022. Risk-Based Approval Modification Application 40 CFR 761.61 (c)(1) 1375 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, CORONA, CA. April 2022. Included as IS/MND Technical Appendix F5.

23. PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS DOCUMENT
City of Corona (Lead Agency)
Rocio Lopez, Consulting Planner
Sandra Yang, Planning Manager
T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant)
Tracy Zinn, AICP, President
Jerrica Harding, AICP, Senior Associate
Kimberly Thienes, Project Coordinator
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 79 Environmental Checklist

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REEPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF CORONA
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1 In the event that vegetation and tree
removal should occur between January 15
and September 15, the Project Applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a
nesting bird survey no more than 3 days
prior to commencement of construction
activities. The biologist conducting the
clearance survey shall document the
negative results if no active bird nests are
observed on the Project site or within the
vicinity during the clearance survey with a
brief letter report, submitted to the City of
Corona Planning and Development
Department prior to construction, indicating
that no impacts to active bird nests would
occur before construction can proceed. If
an active avian nest is discovered during
the pre-construction clearance survey,
construction activities shall stay outside of a
200-foot buffer around the active nest. For
listed and raptor species, this buffer shall
be 500-feet. A biological monitor shall be
present to delineate the boundaries of the
buffer area and to monitor the active nest to
ensure that nesting behavior is not
adversely affected by the construction
activity. Prior to the commencement of
construction activities and the issuance of
any permits, results of the pre-construction
survey and any subsequent monitoring
shall be provided to the City of Corona
Planning and Development Department.

Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Project Applicant, Project
Biologist/Planning and
Development
Department – Planning
Division
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 80 Environmental Checklist
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1 Retain a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, the
Developer/Project Applicant shall retain and
enter into a monitoring and mitigation
service contract with a qualified
Archaeologist (“Archaeological Monitor”) for
mitigation monitoring services, and to
implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring
Program (CRMP). At least 30 days prior to
issuance of grading permits, copy of the
agreement between the Developer/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 all onsite and offsite grounddisturbing 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).

Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
during grading
activities
Project Applicant, Project
Archaeologist/Planning
and Development
Department – Planning
Division
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 81 Environmental Checklist
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
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 ground-disturbing
activities. Full-time monitoring shall
continue until the Archaeological
Monitor determines that the overall
sensitivity of the Project area has been
reduced from high to low as a result of
mitigation monitoring. 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.

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

Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
during grading
activities
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
Condition of
Approval
Submittal of a
Paleontological
Resources
Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
during grading
activities
Project Applicant,
Planning and
Development
Department – Planning
Division, Paleontological
Monitor
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 82 Environmental Checklist
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
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 microvertebrate 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
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 83 Environmental Checklist
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
Western 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 remain (or remains that may be
human) are discovered at the project site
during grading or earthmoving, 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
Condition of
Approval
Submittal of
documentation
If human remains
are discovered
during grounddisturbing
construction
activities
Construction
Contractor(s), County
Coroner, NAHC
PP 2022-0003 IS/MND
City of Corona 84 Environmental Checklist
No. Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification Responsible Person
Verification
Date
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)).

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 3, 2024
Rocio Lopez
Consulting Planner
City of Corona
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE MAGNOLIA AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER DATED DECEMBER 6, 2023 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023120166
Dear Rocio Lopez,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a MND for the Magnolia Avenue Business Center. a proposed redevelopment of a 16.6acre property with two buildings. Building 1 would include 231,370 square feet of floor space and 7,000 square feet of mezzanine space for a total building area of 238,370 square feet. The building is designed to be divided into as many as four suites expected to be occupied by industrial park uses. Building 1 includes 22 dockhigh doors and four gradelevel ramps. Building 2 would include 90,150 square feet of floor area and 6,000 square feet of mezzanine space for a total building area of 96,150 square feet expected to be occupied by a general warehouse use. Building 2 includes 10 dockhigh doors and two gradelevel ramps. Other site features include parking areas, drive aisles, landscaping, lighting, and Rocio Lopez
January 3, 2024

Page 2 ends

Corona City CouncilMarch 6, 2024

Corona City Council
March 6, 2024