Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Under existing conditions, there are no adopted State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency in the Project area. Thus, the Project would have no potential to conflict with such plans, and no impact would occur.

Additionally, and as discussed below, the Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with policies and requirements related to energy conservation. • Project Consistency with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of intermodal 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.

Transportation and access to the Project site is provided primarily 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.
• Project Consistency with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21): The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (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.

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 (VMT), takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. This is because the Project site is located within an area already served with roadway and utilities infrastructure and the Project site is located in an area surrounded by existing and planned residential development. As such, the Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA-21 by taking advantage of the regional and proximate transportation infrastructure. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA-21.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

• Project Consistency with the California Integrated Energy Policy Report (Senate Bill 1389): Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the California Energy Commission to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the State’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code § 25301a). The Energy Commission prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report. The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2019 IEPR) was published in February 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California.

Electricity would be provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper is an integrated approach to reduce GHG emissions and air pollution by taking action in three California economic sectors: electricity, transportation, and buildings.

It builds on existing state programs and policies, and uses a combination of measures to produce the most cost-effective and feasible path forward among the options studied. By 2030, it calls for: 1) an electric grid supplied by 80 percent carbon-free energy; 2) more than 7 million electric vehicles on California roads; and 3) using electricity to power nearly one-third of space and water heaters, in increasingly energyefficient buildings. These electrified technologies will use zero-emission resources like solar and wind to provide most of their power, and can in turn support the electric grid by balancing electricity demand with supply. Because all power supplied to the Project by SCE would be subject to the energy conservation and renewable energy requirements of the CPEP, the Project is inherently consistent with, would not otherwise interfere with, and would not obstruct implementation of, the goals presented in the 2019 IEPR. • Project Consistency with State Energy Plan: The 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 a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

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. • Project Consistency with California Code Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code): California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, 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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

The 2022 Title 24 standards require solar photovoltaic systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting for nonresidential buildings. The CEC previously indicated that single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use approximately 7 percent less energy compared to the residential homes built under the 2016 standards, and the 2022 Title 24 standards are more stringent than the 2019 standards. Additionally, after implementation of solar photovoltaic systems, the CEC previously indicated homes built under the 2019 standards will about 53 percent less energy than homes built under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use approximately 30 percent less energy due to lighting upgrades.

The Project would be subject to the updated 2022 Title 24 standards (or the incumbent version of Title 24 in effect at the time of building permit application). Compliance with the applicable Title 24 requirements is enforced through Section 14-65 of the City’s Municipal Code. Thus, Project consistency with Title 24 requirements would occur as part of the City’s future review of building permit applications. As such, the Project is consistent with, would not interfere with, and would not obstruct implementation of Title 24. • Project Consistency with Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493): AB 1493 is not directly applicable to the Project, since it is a Statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. Additionally, all vehicles accessing the Project site would obtain fuel from local and regional distributors, which would be compliant with AB 1493.
• Project Consistency with California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078): The requirements of the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) are not applicable to the Project as it is a Statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. However, no feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS.
• Project Consistency with Senate Bill 350 (SB 350): 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. The Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new residential developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, under Title 24, the Project is required to install solar PV systems on each dwelling unit, which would feed back into the overall SCE power mix and, therefore the Project would partially support the goas of RPS and SB 350.

Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with any adopted State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts due to the Project’s energy demands would be less than significant, and impacts would be reduced in comparison to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2.7 Geology and Soils
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 420)
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
• Landslides?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2022), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating
physical impacts associated with geology and soils?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant impacts due to the site’s geologic and soil conditions, the analysis herein relies on two technical reports prepared by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (herein, “LGC”). The first report provides a general geotechnical analysis of the site based on the approved version of TTM 36544, is titled, “Geotechnical Rough Grading Plan Review for the Proposed Skyline Heights Residential Development, Tract No. 36544, City of Corona, California” (herein, “Geotechnical Report”) is dated January 30, 2019, and is included as Technical Appendix G1 (LGC, 2019a). The second report addresses the site’s potential to contain or be affected by faults, is titled, “Updated Fault Evaluation for the Proposed "Skyline Heights" Residential Development, Tract No. 36544, City of Corona, California” (herein, “Fault Evaluation”), is dated January 22, 2019, and is included as Technical Appendix G2 (LGC, 2019b).
a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 420) • Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, landslides, and other ground failure hazards. However, the SHP EIR found that adherence to the design and remedial recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, as required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23, as well as compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, would reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.E-18 to 4.E-21) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Provided below is an analysis of the Project’s potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated with earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides.

Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
Regional faulting near the Project site is associated with the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone. In general, the Elinore Fault Zone trends northwest towards the Whittier Fault Zone along the base of the eastern side of the Santa Ana Mountains. As the Elsinore Fault Zone trends northward, it diverges into the Chino Fault, Main Street Fault, Eagle Fault, and Tin Mine Fault south of the Project site near Hagador Canyon. Farther to the northwest the Fresno Fault trends westward towards the Whittier Fault Zone. Generally, it is believed that that the Tin Mine Fault, Eagle Fault, and Fresno Fault transfer displacement from the Main Street Fault to the Whittier Fault Zone. (LGC, 2019b, p. 11) The Tin Mine Fault and Main Street Fault of the Elsinore Fault Zone transect the central and eastern portions of the Project site, respectively, and are depicted on Sheets 1 and 2 in the Project’s Fault Evaluation (Technical Appendix G2). These faults have been delineated as Earthquake Fault Zones in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. In addition, mapping based on site geomorphology completed by others indicated potential “step over” faulting in the area which warranted subsurface investigation. During a prior subsurface investigation four additional faults were identified and located, Faults A through D. During LGC’s 2019 subsurface investigation an additional fault zone, possibly a splay of the Main Street Fault or “step over” fault, was encountered and ultimately denoted as Fault Zone E. Descriptions, locations, and dating of the faults encountered onsite are summarized in detail in Subsection 3.2 of the Project’s Fault Evaluation. Based on LGC’s review of the previously-performed subsurface fault investigations and the 2019 investigation conducted by LGC, it has been determined that the Tin Mine Fault, Main Street Fault, and Faults A through D are not Holocene-Active, and no setbacks from these faults are required. (LGC, 2019b, pp. 12-16) The eastern boundary of Fault Zone E is defined by a well-developed thickness of clay gouge and displaces older Trabuco Formation over younger Ladd Formation. The western boundary of the fault zone is not as well-defined (i.e. absence of well-developed fault gouge, slicken lines, polished surfaces, etc.) indicating that the majority of past displacement of Fault Zone E has occurred along or near the eastern boundary and dissipates towards the west. Due to the lack of overlying soils that could be used to date the fault and prior observations, this fault zone is considered Holocene-Active. However, LGC previously reviewed the grading plan associated with the approved TTM 36544, and determined that the fault projects through areas with cuts up to approximately 140 feet and areas of fills up to approximately 40 feet. The subject fault planes were projected up through proposed overlying fill and down through proposed cut areas to design finish grades in order to anticipate its location subsequent to grading.

LGC indicates that the projected fault rupture zone has been conservatively estimated and that the actual location of the faults subsequent to grading would be located within the limits of the projected fault rupture zone. Based on the well-defined nature of the eastern fault zone boundary, anticipated amount of displacement, and conservative projection of the fault rupture zone at finish grades, LGC recommends that habitable structures be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the limits of the projected fault rupture zone. The recommended structural/building setback was accommodated on the grading plans associated with the approved TTM 36544. (LGC, 2019b, p. 19)
The grading plan and proposed lotting associated with proposed TTM 36544R1 is consistent with the grading plan associated with the approved TTM 36544 within the portions of the Project site where Fault Zone E was conservatively mapped on site. Consistent with the approved TTM 36544, Fault Zone E would traverse cut and fill slopes near proposed on-site Streets “A” and “B.” There are ten proposed residential lots within close proximity to Fault Zone E along Streets “A” and “B,” and consistent with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, all of the proposed homes are set back a minimum of 25 feet from the mapped fault zone (refer to Sheet 1 of 3 of the Geologic Map included in the Project’s Fault Evaluation report [Technical Appendix G2]). Accordingly, although Fault Zone E is considered Holocene-Active and could result in fault rupture over the life of the Project, because the proposed residential structures are set back more than 25 feet from the conservatively-mapped fault zone, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and impacts would be less than significant. (LGC, 2019b, pp. 20-22)
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. The

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California area.

The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), as implemented by the City of Corona. The CBC identifies design features required to be implemented to resist the effects of seismic ground motions. Additionally, the Project’s Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G1) includes site-specific recommendations to attenuate seismic-related hazards. With mandatory compliance to the 2022 CBC, or the applicable building code at the time of Project construction, and with implementation of the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report (as required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23), structures and persons on the Project site would not be exposed to substantial adverse groundshaking effects. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. Subsequent to rough grading the Project site soils conditions would consist of compacted artificial fill soils overlying dense bedrock. Based on the anticipated site soil conditions after grading and the lack of shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant. (LGC, 2019a, p. 9) Landslides
LGC conducted a review of the regional geologic maps, which did not indicate the presence of landslides within or adjacent to the Project site. However, a landslide complex was encountered and mapped during a previous geologic investigation. The landslide complex is located along the eastern boundary of the site on the southern side of Kroonen Canyon. A portion of the landslide complex is located offsite east of the Project site. Subsurface exploration found the landslide to extend to depths of approximately 45 feet below existing grades within the Project site. However, the Project would be subject to compliance with SHP EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (as modified/supplemented herein), which requires compliance with the Geotechnical Report’s recommendations related to removal depths. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, mandatory compliance with the Geotechnical Report’s recommendations would ensure that landslide hazards do not pose a substantial risk to the proposed development and would ensure that the Project does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides, and would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to below a level of significance. (LGC, 2019a, pp. 7-8)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Conclusion
Based on the site-specific geotechnical and fault investigations, and with implementation of the mitigation measures identified by the SHP EIR (as supplemented/modified herein), the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that construction activities associated with buildout of the SHP would require mass grading on the site and removal of fill, alluvium, and other loose materials. The SHP EIR noted that Best Management Practices would be implemented in accordance with an approved Erosion Control Plan. After construction, the SHP EIR found that any non-paved, exposed areas would be landscaped. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that with compliance with applicable requirements, impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.E-21 to 4.E-22) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during both construction and long-term operation. Each is discussed below.

Construction-Related Activities
Consistent with the information disclosed in the SHP EIR, proposed grading activities associated with the Project would temporarily expose underlying soils to water and air, which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water.

Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, during grading and other construction activities involving soil exposure or the transport of earth materials, CMC Chapter 15.36 (Grading Regulations) would apply, which establishes, in part, requirements for the control of dust and erosion during construction (e.g., refer to CMC Section 15.36.170, Dust Control). As part of the requirements of Chapter 15.36, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that would address construction fencing, sandbags, and other erosion-control features that would be implemented during the construction phases to reduce the site’s potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Requirements for the reduction of particulate matter in the air also would apply, pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, mandatory compliance with the Project’s NPDES permit and applicable regulatory requirements would ensure that water and wind erosion impacts would be less than significant.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Long-Term Operational Activities
Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces. Only nominal areas of exposed soil, if any, would occur in the site’s landscaped areas. The only potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be indirect effects from stormwater discharged from the property. The Project would entail grading within and fill of in the unnamed and several smaller tributary streams within the Project development area, while preserving the existing drainage patterns within on- and off-site open space areas. A system of storm drain pipes are proposed to convey the runoff across the site to the designated discharge points. The drainage collection and conveyance system will be designed to convey the 100-year storm runoff. The on-site development would have a separate water quality piping system to convey the first flush runoff to designated treatment areas prior to discharge into the mainline storm drain systems. This would eliminate the comingling of development runoff with offsite runoff prior to discharge into the public storm drain system and/or existing drainage channels.

All flows generated on the Project site would be conveyed to water quality basins, which would provide water quality treatment for site runoff. The site’s runoff would be detained and desilted in these basins prior to being discharged into various existing discharge points around the site. Outlet structures have been designed for the 100-year 1-hour storm event per typical minimum flood protection criteria by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) criteria. This criteria is more stringent than the California Code of Regulation Section 3706 (CCR 3706) design criteria for 20-year 1-hour storm event. The Project’s site-specific Hydrology and Hydraulic Drainage Report (Technical Appendix H1) demonstrates that following Project construction the total volumes would be mitigated to the pre-development conditions. In addition, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long-term operations. The WQMP must identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. Adherence to the requirements noted in the Project’s required WQMP (refer to Technical Appendix H2) would further ensure that potential erosion and sedimentation effects would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in runoff that could result in increased erosion hazards downstream. Impacts would be less than significant. (KWC Engineers, 2025a, pp. 5-8)
Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during near-term construction activities or long-term operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that mass grading at the SHP site has the potential to reduce slope stability and result in settling ad other

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

geologic hazards. However, the SHP EIR noted that adherence to the design and remedial grading and monitoring recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-15, would reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.E-22 to 4.E-25) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project’s potential to result in significant impacts associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse is discussed below.

On- and Off-Site Landslides
The Project site is located on a hillside that contains fairly steep topography. Thus, there is a potential for future grading to result in conditions on site that are conducive to landslide hazards. The SHP EIR determined that the approved TTM 36544 would result in maximum depths of cut and fill of 130 feet and 138 feet, respectively.

Consistent with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, the Project’s grading plan proposes cuts and fills to maximum design depths of approximately 132.0 feet (vicinity of Lot 135) and 131.4 feet (vicinity of Lot 15), respectively. All proposed slopes within the development would be constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and would be constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report (Technical Appendix G1), as required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-9. Mandatory compliance with SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-9, which implement the recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report with respect to grading/slope stability, would ensure that all proposed slopes are engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-and offsite areas. As such, and consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR, the Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts associated with on- or off-site landslides.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Due to the extremely low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered to be very low.

Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in lateral spreading, and impacts would be less than significant.

Subsidence and Collapse
Subsidence due to earthwork equipment is expected to be up to approximately 0.1-foot in the older artificial fill areas. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. Fill soils are subject to post-grading settlement. This even occurs to properly compacted fill soils with properly constructed subdrains. Total fill depths greater than approximately 50 feet require surface settlement monitoring be performed after grading is completed to ensure long-term fill settlement is within tolerable limits prior to commencement of building construction. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report and as required by the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR, settlement monuments would be installed promptly after grading in

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

order to monitor settlement of deeper fills (approximately 50 feet or deeper) in accordance with the details provided in Appendix E to the Project’s Geotechnical Report. The precise locations of the settlement monuments would be verified or adjusted based on the actual as-graded fill depths. At the completion of their construction, the monuments would be surveyed by a licensed surveyor to a fixed offsite benchmark (read at three locations) to an accuracy of at least 0.01- foot with provided measurements to 0.001-foot. When site grading is completed, the monuments would then be monitored periodically at regular intervals (eight times in each of the first two months, twice in the third month, and then once a month until informed otherwise by the Project geologist). The readings would be provided to the Project geologist, which would continue monitoring settlement until total settlements are within tolerable limits. Accordingly, with mandatory compliance with the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR requiring compliance with the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in subsidence hazards. Consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR, impacts would be less than significant following mitigation.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. Subsequent to rough grading the soils conditions at the Project site would consist of compacted artificial fill soils overlying dense bedrock. Based on the anticipated site soil conditions after grading and lack of shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With mandatory compliance with the site-specific recommendations contained in the Project’s Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G), as required by the mitigation measures presented in the SHP EIR (as supplemented/modified herein), the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2022), creating substantial risks to life or property? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that on-site soils are anticipated to have low to medium expansion potential. The SHP EIR further noted that any soils with high or critical expansion potential would be replaced with compacted fill with low or medium expansion potential as required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-10. The SHP concluded that the design of foundations to meet medium soils expansion potential, as required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-10 would reduce risks to life or property to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.E-25) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Based on the results of previous laboratory testing by others as part of prior geotechnical investigations, fills at the completion of grading are anticipated to have a “Very Low” to “Medium” expansion potential. However, excavation of some portions of the Holz Shale and/or Silverado Formation could result in expansion potentials ranging from “High” to “Very High”.

However, the Project would be required to implement the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G), as required by the mitigation measures presented in the SHP EIR (as supplemented/modified herein), which include recommendations to address potential impacts associated with expansive soils. With implementation of the Geotechnical Report recommendations, the proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2022), creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: No Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP project would be served by the City’s wastewater system, and that sewer infrastructure (i.e., pipes) would be installed to accommodate the proposed expansion. The SHP EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur with regard to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.E-25 to 4.E-26) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, with implementation of the Project, sewer service to the Project site would be provided by the City of Corona Utilities Department via proposed sewer lines within the Project site that would connect to existing sewer mains located within Mabey Canyon Road, Border Avenue, and Trudy Way. Accordingly, because the Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, no impact would occur. It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

f) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that the SHP project would comply with all requirements related to seismic and geologic hazard safety standards. The SHP EIR further found that the SHP project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils, and that any impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.E-25 to 4.E-26) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would comply with all applicable requirements related to seismic and geologic hazard safety standards, as established by local, state, and federal regulations. The previously certified SHP EIR determined that the Project would adhere to all relevant plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils. Additionally, the Project would implement the applicable mitigation measures from the SHP EIR (GEO-1 through GEO-23), which are designed to address potential geologic and soil-related impacts. These measures would ensure that any potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, the discussion presented below in Table 23, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Seismic and Geologic Hazards, demonstrates that the proposed Project would be fully consistent with all applicable General Plan policies related to Geology and Soils. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations intended to mitigate or avoid physical impacts related to geology and soils. It also bears noting that the proposed Project would develop the same property as the Approved Project, and there has been no changed circumstances that would affect geotechnical impacts. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

Table 23 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal PS-1:Adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public, property and economic investments, and community social and service functions from seismic and geologic events.

Consistent. As documented herein and in Subsection 4.E of the SHP EIR, the Project would be required to comply with the site-specific recommendations of the Project’s
Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G1), pursuant to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR (as
supplemented/modified herein), as well as the CBC, which would ensure that future Project residents are adequately protected from seismic and geologic events.

Policy PS-1.1: Maintain accurate records, information, and mapping of seismic and geologic activity and hazards in Corona and the region from the California Geologic Survey; update records with information from local geotechnical studies.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-1.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to maintain records and
information related to seismic and geologic activity
monitoring, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-1.2 In areas subject to seismic and geologic
hazards, require development proposals to include a
geotechnical hazard analysis and specific mitigations to Consistent. As noted in the analysis provided herein and in the SHP EIR, the Project would be required to comply with the site-specific recommendations of the Project’s

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
reduce risks to acceptable levels as a condition of approval. Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G1), pursuant to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR (as
supplemented/modified herein), as well as the CBC, which would ensure that the Project includes appropriate
measures to reduce geologic hazard risks to acceptable
levels.

Policy PS-1.3 Enforce development requirements, such as seismic study analyses, project siting, setbacks, and project design features for proposed developments near the
Elsinore Fault Zone and other active faults in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act.

Consistent. As noted under the discussion of Geology and Soils Threshold a), the Project has been designed to
incorporate appropriate setbacks from Fault Zone E, and no structures are proposed within any active fault zones.

Policy PS-1.4 Require adherence to the latest California Building Codes and associated regulations in the City’s Municipal Code; update local codes and development
requirements periodically for the latest best practices.

Consistent. The Project would be subject to compliance
with the CBC, as implemented by CMC Chapter 15.36
(Grading Regulations). The remaining portions of this
policy provide direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-1.5 Locate new or existing buildings in the
Elsinore earthquake fault zone or in other areas at risk from liquefaction, landslides, or other seismic and geologic hazards in the community and take corrective actions to minimize the risk of loss.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to implement
the site-specific recommendations of the Project’s
Geotechnical Report (Technical Appendix G1), and would
be required to implement the recommendations identified by the Geotechnical Report pursuant to the mitigation
measures presented in the SHP EIR (as supplemented/
modified herein), which would reduce to a level below
significance potential adverse effects associated with
liquefaction, landslides, or other seismic and geologic hazards.

Policy PS-1.6 Identify vulnerable structures and encourage the retrofit or upgrade of vulnerable buildings (e.g., mobile homes) to minimize the damage to structures and reduce
the risk or injury or death from seismic or geologic events.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-1.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-1.7 Require geotechnical analysis for projects proposed in areas subject to corrosive soils. Where found, require appropriate cathodic protections and other best practices to minimize damage to buildings, structures, and infrastructure.

Consistent. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the
Project and is included as Technical Appendix G1. Pursuant to the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/
supplemented herein), the Project would be required to
implement all of the recommendations included in the
Geotechnical Report, which would serve to preclude
damage to buildings, structures, and infrastructure.

Policy PS-1.8 Limit grading for developments to the
minimum needed to preserve natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability. Require appropriate grading plans and slope stability to minimize soil instability.

Consistent. The proposed Project consists of the first
revision to TTM 36544, and has been designed to reduce
the amount of grading required on site. Areas proposed
for disturbance as part of the Project would be
substantially reduced from 170.70 acres under the
Approved Project to 151.8 acres under the proposed
Project. All grading proposed on site is the minimum
amount of grading necessary to preserve natural
topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
slope stability, while accommodating the proposed
development.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply and, consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to geology and soils to below a level of significance.

GEO-1 Site Preparation and Removals. All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Project Geotechnical Report, contained in Appendix F of this Draft EIR, the current codes practiced by the City of Corona and the Earthwork Specifications contained in Appendix IV of the Project Geotechnical Report.

Loose, compressible residual soil, non-engineered onsite fill, colluvium, alluvium, landslide debris, older alluvium and weathered bedrock shall be removed from fill areas prior to placement of fill and shall be removed from shallow cut areas, where exposed at finish grades. Guidelines to determine the depth of removals are presented below; however, the exact extent of the removals must be determined in the field during grading, when observation and evaluation of the greater detail afforded by those exposures can be performed by the Geotechnical engineer and/or Engineering Geologist.

The minimum backcut ratio shall be 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). The bottoms of all removal areas shall be observed, mapped and approved by the Engineering Geologist prior to fill placement. It is recommended that the bottoms of removals be surveyed and documented by the Project Civil Engineer.

Groundwater, if encountered during grading, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist. In general, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect grading although saturated soils and free water may be encountered along canyons and within alluvium removals. If groundwater is excessive, remedial measures such as horizontal drains or under drains may need to be installed. Further, settlement monuments and plates (see Plate VI of the Geotechnical Report) shall be installed during and after completion of grading to monitor settlement monuments and plates shall be used to determine when the majority of the primary settlement has been completed to allow for the release of affected lots for construction.  Stripping: Vegetation, debris and other deleterious materials are unsuitable as structural fill material and shall be disposed of offsite prior to commencing removals and placement of compacted fills. The thick, natural vegetative growth onsite is significant and will require consideration for removal. An onsite mulching operation may be considered. The mulched materials could then be used in future landscape areas.  Soil and Weathered Bedrock (unmapped): Loose, compressible onsite soils and underlying weathered bedrock shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock materials prior to placement of compacted fill and when exposed in shallow cut area. An average removal depth of 5 feet is anticipated for removal of topsoil and weathered bedrock. In

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

general, onsite soils and weathered bedrock are suitable to be re-used as structural fill when properly moisture-conditioned.
 Undocumented Artificial Fill (locally mapped as AFu): Fills associated with "recreational" grading, construction of unpaved access roads, mining operations and existing trench backfill shall be removed prior to fill placement. Generally, these artificial fills range from a depth of 3 to 20 feet. Local areas of undocumented fill associated with previous geotechnical investigations are not plotted on the map. Other fills, including roadway fills and trench backfill, are not mapped due to their localized extent and minor thickness. Removals shall extend below the undocumented fill until competent materials are encountered.  Alluvium/Colluvium (map symbol Qal): All alluvium deposits exposed at existing or cut grades shall be entirely removed prior to fill placement. These deposits range in thickness from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet. Ginter and Associates recommends that all alluvial and colluvial soils below proposed fill areas and in cut areas be removed to expose competent bedrock or terrace deposits. Anticipated average removal depths for alluvium/colluvium areas are expected to vary to an estimated maximum thickness of 35 feet.  Groundwater was not encountered during PSE's subsurface investigation within the alluvium onsite. However, access was limited and certain alluvial areas could not be investigated such as within Krooner Canyon. If "saturated" alluvium is encountered that possesses a degree of saturation of 85% of more and is consistent with depth to bedrock, consideration may be given to leaving the saturated alluvium in-place, provided that settlement time-delay consequences are acceptable to the owner. If saturated alluvium is encountered and is going to remain inplace, an additional liquefaction investigation may be required and dynamic settlement recommendations for those areas will likely change.
 Older Alluvium (Qoa): All older alluvium shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock. Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to about 20 feet.  Landslide Debris (Qls): All landslide debris that could adversely affect the proposed development shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock. Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to about 29 feet, but may range up to around 35 feet in depth.  Removals Along Grading Limits: Removals of unsuitable soils shall be required prior to fill placement along the grading limit. A 1:1 projection, from toe of slope or grading limit, outward to competent materials shall be established, when possible. Where removals are not possible due to grading limits, property line or easement restrictions, removals shall be initiated at the grading boundary (property line easement, grading limit or outside the improvement) at a 1:1 ratio inward to competent materials. Where this reduced removal criterion is implemented, special maintenance zones may be necessary. Affected areas shall be established, minimally, as a 1:1 projection from suitable removal bottom to finish ground surface. This condition is mainly expected in the slope areas. Where the projection intersects the face of the slope, the potential for distortion of the slope in response to post-grading settlements exists and provisions for future maintenance of such slopes shall be provided.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

GEO-2 Slope Stability and Remediation
 Cut Slopes: The majority of cut slopes have been designed at a slope ratio of 2:1. The Engineering Geologist shall observe cut slopes and cut slope stabilization backcuts during grading. Modifications to the recommendations presented herein will likely be required based upon conditions exposed by grading.
 Williams Formation (KW): Cut slopes within the Williams Formation may expose adverse bedding that shall require remediation. The cut slope superjacent to Lots 278 and 279 is anticipated to require replacement with a buttress fill. Probable buttresses are anticipated for the cut slope above Lots 261 through 267 and the cut slope below the WQMP Basin and Lots 247 through 255, as depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2 (pocket) of the Geotechnical Report.  Ladd Formation: Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation may expose adverse bedding that shall require remediation. The majority of the cut slopes should expose bedding dipping into the slope or at an angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes (greater than 60 degrees). Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation that expose bedding dipping into the slope or at an angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes are expected to be grossly stable; however, the final determination shall be made based on exposed conditions during grading. Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation may expose conglomerate resulting in poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, producing a rough uneven surface. These cut slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.

Replacement of those slopes with compacted stabilization fills may be required. Future exploration and in-grading observation could reveal more favorable geology in these specific areas.
 Alluvium/Colluvium: Cut slopes exposing alluvial/colluvial soils (Qal) shall require replacement with a drained stabilization fill. Typically, such corrective grading would be constructed with a minimum key width corresponding to one-half the full height of the superjacent slope, but not less than 15 feet. Minimum key depths at the toe shall be 2 feet.

All stabilization fills shall be provided with a backdrain and outlet system as detailed in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report.
 Silverado Formation: Cut slopes within the Silverado Formation are expected to be grossly stable; however the final determination shall be made based on exposed conditions during grading. Cut slopes within the Silverado Formation may expose poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, which would produce a rough uneven surface. These cut slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Replacement of those slopes with compacted stabilization fills may be required.  Fill Slopes: The majority of fill slopes on the project are designed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1. The highest fill slope is approximately 160 feet in height and located subjacent to Lot 68.

Based on the results of the calculations, the 2:1 fill slopes 160 feet and less in height, when properly constructed with onsite materials, are expected to be grossly stable, as designed.

Keys shall be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes where unsuitable soil removals do not accomplish a minimum key width of one-half the slope height plus bench widths or twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater. Minimum key depths at the toe shall be 2 feet. Due to grading

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

limit restrictions, removals of unsuitable soils beyond the proposed toe may be limited; therefore, additional slope maintenance shall be expected in the areas where a 1:1 projection into approved materials cannot be achieved.

GEO-3 Subsurface Drainage. Canyon subdrains are proposed as depicted on Figures 1 through 7 of the Geotechnical Report and shall consist of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter pipes and shall be constructed in accordance with the details shown in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report. Final determination of drain locations shall be made in the field. Outletting of subdrain systems shall require coordination with the Project Civil Engineer in determining suitable facilities to accept to drain water.

GEO-4 Overexcavation. Where a transition of cut and fill occurs across a finished lot, it shall be necessary to overexcavate the bedrock portions and replace it with compacted fill. The depth of bedrock overecavation shall be equal to 1/3 the maximum fill depth (after removals) on the fill side of the transition. Anticipated transition lots are shown on figures 1-7 of the geotechnical report. Cut pads shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet to provide a uniform foundation material. Some highly expansive soils of the Silverado Formation may be encountered at grade in some areas.

Consideration shall be given to increasing the overexcavation depth to mitigate for highly expansive soils, if warranted. Difficult excavation with a backhoe can be expected in some street areas. Ginter & associates recommends street overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill to facilitate utility emplacement in these street areas and driveways. Depths of overexcavation shall extend one (1) foot below the deepest utility line.

GEO-5 Fill Materials. Excavated on-site soils may be used as compacted fill. The fill materials to be used as compacted engineered fill shall be free of organics, debris, deleterious materials, and rocks over 6 inches maximum dimension, and must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or project geologist prior to use. Import soils, if required, shall be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer for suitability prior to delivery. Import soils shall be free of trash, debris or other objectionable materials. All import fill shall have engineering characteristics similar to the on-site soils.

GEO-6 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditioning, And Compaction. After approval of the over-excavation and prior to placement of any compacted engineered fill materials, the exposed removal bottoms shall be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches. The area shall then be moisture conditioned approximately 1 to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 (or 93) percent of the applicable maximum density. The planned development will involve deep fills in the canyon areas and side-hill fill slopes. In order to reduce the amount of fill settlement, the fill shall be compacted to the minimum relative compaction shown below:

Fill Depth (Feet) Minimum Relative Compaction (ASTM: D1557) (%) 0 – 50 90
Below 50 93
Fill slopes shall also be constructed at the minimum relative compactions shown above, with the exception of the outer 3 feet of the slope face which can be placed at 90% relative compaction.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Deep fill areas requiring 93% relative compaction are delineated in Plate VI of the Geotechnical Report.

Generation of oversized rock (over 8 inches in maximum dimension) from excavations in the bedrocks is anticipated. Oversize rock shall be placed in single file windrows not exceeding three feet in height and six (6) feet in width with a minimum equipment width (15 feet) separating each windrow or a rock blanket fill not exceeding two (2) to three (3) feet in height. Large erratic rocks shall be buried individually. Granular fill shall be thoroughly flooded in the rock voids and covered with a minimum two feet compacted fill blanket. Successive windrows shall be staggered and none shall be placed within 10 feet of finished grade or closer than 15 feet to compacted fill slope surfaces. Typical rock placement construction detail is provided in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report. Placement of rock windrows shall be performed under the observation and recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

Fill materials shall be spread in thin lifts, moisture conditioned to about 1 to 2 percentage points over optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 (or 93) percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557.

Each lift shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The grading contractor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment in operation to achieve the required compaction. When necessary, earthmoving equipment may be utilized for compaction or temporarily halted in order to permit adequate compaction of fills.

GEO-7 Slope Construction

1. Care shall be taken during grading to prevent spillage of loose materials over slopes to remain natural. Should loose soil be spilled onto natural slopes by the grading contractor, removal of the loose fill shall be required.

2. Fill shall be properly benched into firm bedrock or compacted fill as directed by the Project Engineering Geologist and/or Geotechnical Engineer during grading. Typical benching shall include 4-foot verticals exposing approved, competent material (see Appendix D – Typical Benching Detail of the Geotechnical Report).

3. In order to minimize surficial slumps on compacted fill slopes, the following grading procedures shall be used:
a) Where possible, fill slopes shall be constructed by overfilling a minimum of three (3) horizontal feet and then trimming back to expose the dense inner core of the slope surface. Compacted fill slopes shall be back-rolled during construction at intervals not exceeding four (4) vertical feet. Care shall be taken to construct the slope in a workmanlike manner so that it is positioned at its designed orientation and slope ratio. Achieving a uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling must be avoided. Any add-on correction to a fill slope shall be done by overfilling the affected area in horizontal, compacted lifts which must be benched into the existing fill prism. The overfilled slope may then be trimmed to the design gradient.
b) Where fill slopes are planned above natural slopes and cannot be overfilled and trimmed back, the slopes shall be rolled for the entire height of the slope with a sheepsfoot roller

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

and then finished with a grid roller. If the desired compaction is not obtained in this manner, a vibratory sheepsfoot roller may be required. To be most effective, this equipment shall be anchored and manipulated from a side-boom tractor. In lieu of a grid roller, the slope may be track rolled with a John Deere 450, Caterpillar D-8 dozer or equivalent. To obtain the required compaction and appearance of the slope face, the soil moisture shall be maintained at above optimum from the time of mass filling to the completion of grid rolling.
c) The grading contractor shall take proper care to avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slopes during grading and during drainage terrace and down-drain construction. Fine grading operations for benches and down-drains shall not deposit loose trimmed soils on the finished slope surfaces. Loose soil materials shall require removal. d) Seeding and planting of slopes shall proceed as rapidly as possible to achieve a wellestablished and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. The type of vegetation and watering schedule shall be established by a landscape architect familiar with hillside maintenance.

GEO-8 Earthwork Observations And Testing
a) The site preparation, over-excavation, and earthwork shall be performed under the observation and testing by a representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist. b) The fill shall be tested at the time of placement to verify that the required compaction is achieved. c) The fill compaction shall be determined in the field by the Sand Cone Method (ASTM: D 1556) or Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM: D 2216), or other test method approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
d) During grading, an adequate number of field density tests shall be performed using approved test procedures in order to determine compliance of earthwork to the project requirements. The frequency of field density testing shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
e) Quality control testing performed to determine the acceptability of the fill compaction shall be based on the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557 test procedure.
f) Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable materials encountered during grading shall be brought immediately to the attention of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Deeper excavations may be required, should unsuitable soils be encountered locally, as determined by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist.

GEO-9 Deep Fill Settlement Monitoring. In deep fill areas, settlement monuments shall be installed and periodically surveyed by the project civil engineer to evaluate the magnitude and progress of settlements. Ginter & associates proposes positioning settlement monuments at strategic locations in the deeper fill areas as shown on figure vi of the geotechnical report. These shall be monitored on a regular basis until the primary settlement has stabilized before those areas released for construction.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

GEO-10 Foundation Design. The compacted engineered fill at the project site is anticipated to be low to medium soil expansion potential. Presented below are preliminary geotechnical criteria for design of building foundations, based on medium soil expansion potential for the on-site soils:

Option 1 - Conventional Footing:

Allowable Bearing Pressure (1) = 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) Minimum Footing Depth (2) = 24 inches
Minimum Footing Width = Continuous: 12 inches
Isolated: 24 inches
Passive Soil Pressure (3) = 250 psf/ft.

Friction Coefficient = 0.30 (ultimate)
Minimum Footing Reinforcement = Four No. 4 bars, 2 each at top and bottom Garage Door Grade Beam = 18 inches deep, Four No. 4 bars, Two each at top and bottom, tied into foundation elements

1. The above value may be increased 250 psf for each additional foot exceeding the minimum embedment depth and/or width, subject to a maximum of 2,500 psf. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for short term loading due to wind or seismic forces.

2. Footing depth is from lowest adjacent finished soil grade. Footings shall be deepened, as necessary, to provide setback distance from adjacent slope in conformance with CBC criteria.

3. Value applies to level soil condition, and is subject to a maximum of 2000 psf.

Option 2 – Post-Tensioned Foundation:

If post-tensioned slab/footing system is selected for the subject project, the design may be based on the geotechnical criteria shown below for medium soil expansion potential. These are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.

Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -20
Equilibrium Suction = 3.6
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 5.1 feet
Edge Lift, ym = 1.1 inches
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 9.0 feet
Center Lift, ym = 0.47 inches
Minimum Footing Depth (Exterior) = 18 inches below adjacent grade The above foundation criteria are based on medium soil expansion consideration only. Foundation design shall consider anticipated post-construction settlements, as appropriate. Foundation design details such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer considering medium soil expansion and settlement potential provided below.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

GEO-11 Foundation Settlement. Total static and differential post-construction settlements for footings designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria given below and supporting loads not exceeding the typical loadings for residential construction (column and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 3 kips/lineal foot, respectively) are not anticipated to exceed the values shown below.

The settlement estimates shall be confirmed based on review of the foundation plans. Structures shall be designed for the following post-construction settlements:
- Total settlement = 1 inch
- Differential settlement = ¾-inch (*)
(*) Between similarly loaded column footings and for continuous footings and slabs over a distance of approximately 30 feet.

General Remarks:
i. Footing depths shall not be allowed to be affected adversely, such as through erosion softening, digging, landscaping, etc.
ii. Where foundations encroach closer than five (5) feet horizontally from the flow line of drainage swales, the footing shall be deepened sufficiently to maintain the required embedment depth below the adjacent flow line.
iii. Foundation details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer, considering the loading and medium soil expansion potential. The footing and slab reinforcements recommended in the Geotechnical Report are minimum requirements. More restrictive criteria based on structural design considerations or Code requirements shall govern.
iv. Foundation excavations shall be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of reinforcement or concrete. Forming of footing excavations may be required. Excavations shall be free of slough and debris and thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete.

Excavated material from footing and utility trenches shall not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested.

GEO-12 Slab-On-Grade.

Recommended Minimum Criteria For Slab-On-Grade Are Shown Below:

Concrete Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs shall be 5 inches thick (minimum) and shall be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid height. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center shall be provided connecting floor slabs to footings. In order to minimize migration of moisture up the concrete slab from soil subgrade and damage to floor coverings, a moisture barrier/water vapor retarder is recommended beneath floor slabs as discussed hereinafter.

Moisture/Water Vapor Retarder for Concrete Slab-on-Grade: In order to reduce the potential for moisture/water vapor migration up through the slab and possibly affecting floor covering, a moisture/vapor retarder is recommended under concrete floor slab-on-grade. The moisture barrier shall be properly installed, lapped and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer’s

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

specifications. Punctures and rips shall be repaired prior to placement of sand. At a minimum, this moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of 10- millimeter thick polyethylene (“Visqueen”), lapped and sealed, and placed mid-height within a 4-inch coarse sand layer. This moisture/water vapor retarder shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The following recommendations are based on the tentative guidelines by the American Concrete Institute (ACI, April 2001) to reduce the potential moisture/water vapor intrusion in concrete slab-on-grade.

Based on Ginter & Associates’ review of available literature, it appears that the ACI procedure would be more effective to help reduce potential moisture/water vapor migration up through concrete slab-on-grade.

Recommendations based on the ACI guidelines are presented below:
 The moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of high strength polyethylene membrane and shall meet or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder shall consist of “Moistop Plus” (Fortifiber Building Products Systems) or “Vapor Block” VB 15 (Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor retarder shall be underlain by a capillary break comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer. The gravel layer shall be placed and compacted on approved soil sub-grade.
 The membrane shall be placed on approved gravel layer and properly lapped and sealed.

Membranes intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains shall be properly wrapped around the penetrations and sealed. All punctures and rips in the membrane shall be repaired prior to placement of concrete, following manufacturer’s recommendations. The vapor retarder shall be installed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E1643, and in conformance with the installation procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
 To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low shrinkage mix design) shall be used for the slab construction, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer.  The moisture/water vapor protection for concrete slab-on-grade shall be selected based on cost and construction considerations, and considering potential future problems resulting from improper and uncontrolled landscape irrigation practices. Regardless of the moisture/water vapor retarder option selected, it should be emphasized that proper control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to the structure is of paramount importance.

GEO-13 Driveways. Driveway concrete slabs shall be 5 inches thick (minimum) with no. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid-height. The slab may be placed directly on properly prepared subgrade. No moisture barrier is required under driveway slabs.

GEO-14 Exterior Flatwork. Exterior concrete flatwork (e.g. Sidewalks, walkways) shall be 4 inches thick (minimum), with no. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height and placed on properly prepared sub-grade. Hardscape areas within two feet of the descending slopes shall include a thickened edge deepened to provide a minimum five (5) feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

GEO-15 Sub-Grade Pre-Saturation. Prior to concrete placement, the soil sub-grade shall be thoroughly wetted to about 12 inches in depth at a moisture condition of about 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content.

GEO-16 General. Interior floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, shall be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions, potential settlements and soil expansion. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc. Shall be established by the project structural engineer. The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only. More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern.

GEO-17 Retaining Walls
 Foundations: Retaining wall foundations may be supported on either compacted engineered fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock/fill transition is encountered, the bedrock portion shall be overexcavated minimum 2 feet and replaced with approved compacted fill. Alternatively, a cold joint shall be constructed in both the footing and the wall. Footings may be designed in accordance with the foundation design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Report when embedded at least two feet below lowest adjacent grade. Footings located on or at top of slopes shall be deepened, as necessary, to provide minimum lateral setback between footing and slope faces in accordance with CBC requirements.
 Lateral Earth Pressures: The earth pressures acting on retaining walls depend primarily on allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure. The following lateral earth pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:

Wall Condition Backfill Type Lateral Earth Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) (pcf)
Level 2:1 (H:V)
Active (Cantilever) Sandy Soils 40 65
The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (i.e. traffic, construction equipment, footings, etc.) shall be included in the wall design. If the wall is free to deflect, 33 percent of the maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of wall shall be used in the design.
 Backfill: Retaining wall backfill shall consist of predominantly granular non-expansive soils.

The backfill shall extend within a 45-degree plane from the wall footing. Retaining wall backfill shall be mechanically compacted to minimum 90 percent of the applicable laboratory maximum density and performed under the observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. No jetting, ponding, or flooding shall be permitted. No backfill shall be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are attained.  Backfill Drainage: The wall design shall include waterproofing and weep holes or sub-drains or backdrains, as appropriate, for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. If on-site soils are utilized for wall backfill, the design shall include a prefabricated drainage blanket (such as

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Miradrain 2000, or equivalent). At a minimum, sub-drains shall consist of 4-inch diameter, perforated Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of ¾-inch (maximum) rock, or approved alternate. This permeable material shall be enveloped in Geofabric consisting of Mirafi 140 or equivalent. The pipe and trench bottom shall be sloped at a gradient of 2+ percent to a suitable discharge outlet. Sub-drains placed behind retaining walls shall be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to backfill placement.

GEO-18 Soil Corrosion. The previous geotechnical consultants, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., performed preliminary testing and indicated that the site soils are corrosive to metals. Therefore, representative finished grade samples shall be tested for corrosion suites (sulfate, chloride, pH and resistivity) upon completion of grading. It may be necessary to retain a corrosion engineer for consultation.

GEO-19 Utility Trench Backfill
 Bedding material shall consist of on-site sandy or imported materials exhibiting a San Equivalent (S.E.) value of 30 or greater.
 The on-site soils are considered suitable for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic materials and oversize rocks.
 Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 4 inches and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on ASTM: D1157. Care shall be taken not to damage utility lines.  Utility trenches shall not be located within the influence of footings. This is defined as a zone located below the footing and a line sloping at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) outward from the outside edge of footings. If utility lines are located within the zone of footings, the backfill shall be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction or slurry backfilled (minimum 1-1/2 sack cemented sand mix.  To reduce potential water migration into building subgrade through the granular bedding/shading layer and/trench backfill, utility trenches shall be backfilled with the onsite finer grained materials or sand-cement slurry for minimum 3 feet length at their entry points.  Trenches in fill soils and alluvial deposits greater than 4 feet in depth shall be shored or sloped back as required by the local regulatory agency, the state of California Division of Industrial Safety Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements.

GEO-20 Asphalt Concrete Pavement. Preliminary asphalt concrete pavement sections for the planned streets in the development were developed utilizing the Caltrans method of design and the structural section design guide for California cities and counties. The following recommended pavement sections were computed assuming an “r” value of 30 for site soils compacted as subgrade material, and assumed traffic indices. The actual “r” value will depend on the soil conditions exposed at the planned street sub-grade elevations. During rough grading, “r” value testing shall be performed on the pavement sub-grade soils to confirm the pavement design basis. Further

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

analysis and evaluation are necessary if the design traffic index and the sub-grade “r” value are different from those used in Ginter & Associates’ analyses.

Traffic Index Recommended Minimum Pavement Section
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Total (inches)

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

3.0 4.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0

9.0 12.0

14.0 16.0
Aggregate base shall consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) and shall comply with the specifications outlined in the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction”, (“Green Book”). The base material shall be compacted to minimum 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density, determined in accordance with ASTM: D-1557. The soil sub-grade shall be compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction. The subgrade soils shall exhibit a firm and unyielding surface, in addition to the recommended minimum compaction.

Final compaction and testing of pavement sub-grade shall be performed just prior to placement of aggregate base.

GEO-21 Site Drainage. All roof and surface drainage shall be directed away from structures and their appurtenances and slopes to approved drainage facilities. Ponding of water shall be avoided. For graded soil areas, a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from structures shall be maintained. The drainage patterns designed by the project civil engineer shall be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure or, if altered, shall be replaced with a properly designed area drain system. Irrigation activities at the site shall be monitored and controlled to prevent overwatering. Planter areas adjacent to structures shall be avoided. If utilized, such planters shall include measures to contain irrigation water and prevent moisture migration into walls and under foundations and slabs-on-grade.

GEO-22 Slope Planting, Irrigation And Maintenance. General guidelines for slope planting, irrigation and maintenance are shown below:
a) Slope planting shall consist of appropriate drought resistant vegetation as recommended by the Landscape Architect. Landscaping of slopes shall be completed as soon as possible and properly maintained.
b) The property owner is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of installed irrigation systems. Leaks shall be repaired immediately. Sprinklers shall be adjusted to provide maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Over-watering with consequent excessive runoff and ground saturation shall be avoided. c) If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use shall be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions.
d) All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down-drains, and any other drainage devices that have been installed shall be maintained and cleaned.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

e) If rodent activity is present, the property owner shall undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. This shall be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. f) Water shall not be allowed to flow over the constructed or natural slopes. This may require the construction of berms or ditches along the top of slopes, if such devices are not in place.

GEO-23 Additional Investigation. Additional geologic and geotechnical investigation may be necessary during the 40-scale grading plan review phase to obtain supplemental information relative to the site geologic conditions and engineering properties of onsite materials and to confirm the preliminary recommendations provided herein.

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for purposes of
reducing the emissions of GHGs?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant impacts to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, a Project-specific technical study was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This report is entitled, “Skyline Heights Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment” (herein, “AQ/GHG Assessment”), is dated February 14, 2024, and is included as Technical Appendix C to this EIR Addendum (UC, 2024). It should be noted that the Project’s AQ/GHG Assessment evaluates the Project’s potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assuming buildout of the 276 dwelling units accommodated by proposed TTM 36544R1. Although the proposed SHSP would accommodate up to 292 dwelling units, the additional 16 dwelling units could not be constructed on site without City approval of a subsequent revision to TTM 36544. Furthermore, environmental effects associated with development of the Project site with up to 292 dwelling units previously were fully evaluated as part of the SHP EIR. Accordingly, the focus of this subsection is on the current Project’s potential impacts due to GHGs in comparison to what was evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR based on a reduction in the number of proposed units from 292 units as evaluated by the SHP EIR to 276 units under the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

a) Would the Project generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. Based on a threshold of significance determined by the City of Corona, the SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would generate GHG emissions such that a less-than-significant impact on the environment would occur. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.F-16 to

4.F-18)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Provided below is an assessment of the proposed Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions, as well as a comparison of the Project’s anticipated GHG emissions to the level of GHG emissions presented in the SHP EIR.

Background
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O ), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. (UC, 2024, p. 26)
An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated herein cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, the analysis herein will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect. (UC, 2024, p. 26)
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4 , hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. (UC, 2024, p. 26) Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature. (UC, 2024, p. 26)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases. (UC, 2024, pp. 26-27)
Threshold of significance for Evaluating Project Impacts due to GHGs The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related GHG impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these significance criteria, a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG if it would: (UC, 2024, p. 33)
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions, whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold, and whether the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a reduction or mitigation of GHGs. (UC, 2024, p. 33) Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines does not establish a threshold of significance. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and, in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, such as the CAPCOA, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)). It is noted that the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact less than significant. (UC, 2024, p. 33) Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.” In summary, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) allows the lead agency to make a finding of less than

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies, and/or other regulatory schemes to reduce GHG emissions. (UC, 2024, pp. 33-34)
In the absence of any applicable adopted numeric threshold, the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the Project is consistent with applicable regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emission. The analysis presented herein also considers consistency with regulations or requirements adopted by the AB 32 Scoping Plan and subsequent updates, and the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). (UC, 2024, p. 34) For informational purposes, the analysis provided herein also provides calculations of the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using CalEEMod. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy State CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory also is used to determine if there would be a reduction in the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions because of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. (UC, 2024, p. 34) City of Corona Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update)
In June 2020, the City of Corona adopted the 2019 Climate Action Plan Update (herein, “CAP Update”), which includes an interim goal of reducing GHG emission to 49% below 2008 levels by the year 2030 and a longer-term GHG reduction goal of 66% below 2008 levels by 2040. The interim and longer-term goals put the City on a path toward the state’s long-term goal to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2019 CAP Update establishes goals and policies that encourage energy efficiency, water conservation, alternative transportation, solid waste reduction, and clean energy. Pursuant to Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, “…a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program.” Thus, projects that are consistent with a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions (such as the City of Corona CAP Update) may be relied upon in concluding that a project’s cumulatively-considerable impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant. (UC, 2024, p. 31) Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s CAP Update, which was not in effect at the time the SHP EIR was certified, development projects are required to implement Screening Table Measures providing for a minimum of 100 points per the City’s CAP Update Screening Tables. For projects within the City of Corona, projects that achieve a total of 100 points or more pursuant to the CAP Update Screening Table are considered to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulatively-considerable impact due GHG emissions, in conformance with Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. (UC, 2024, p. 31)
Project Impacts due to GHGs
GHG Emissions Modeling
The Project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) model (version 2022.1.1.21) based on the construction and operational parameters. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality emissions reductions achieved from mitigation measures (UC, 2024, p. 9).

Approved Project GHG Emissions
The Approved Project as evaluated in the SHP EIR assumed the development of 292 single family residential dwelling units. However, the GHG analysis included in the SHP EIR relied on the 2013.2.2 version of CalEEMod.

Since preparation of the SHP EIR’s analysis of impacts due to GHGs, CAPCOA has released several updates to CalEEMod. As the emission factors included in the CalEEMod program have changed over time, an updated calculation of the Approved Project’s GHG emissions has been conducted using the 2022.1.1.21 version of CalEEMod, which uses more updated information and ultimately is more accurate. As shown in Table 24, Approved Project Updated GHG Emissions, and based on the 292 dwelling units previously proposed as part of the Approved Project, the Approved Project would result in annual GHG emissions of approximately 6,194.41 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e). It should be noted that the SHP EIR disclosed that the Approved Project would result in approximately 4,689.07 MTCO2e per year, again based on the older and now outdated version of CalEEMod. The difference between the values disclosed by the SHP EIR and the Project’s AQ/GHG Assessment likely are due to updates to CalEEMod, which over time has resulted in increased emissions factors for certain air quality pollutant sources. (UC, 2024, p. 32)
Table 24 Approved Project Updated GHG Emissions
Source Emission (metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 170.90 6.35E-03 3.09E-03 3.62E-02 172.01 Mobile Source 4,720.36 0.18 0.22 6.20 4,795.47
Area Source 74.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.83
Energy Source 979.25 0.09 0.01 0.00 983.28
Water 71.70 0.39 0.01 0.00 84.49
Waste 23.93 2.39 0.00 0.00 83.73
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60
Total CO2e (All Sources) 6,194.41 MTCO2e/year
(UC, 2024, Table 13)
Proposed Project GHG Emissions
Based on the 276 single-family dwelling units proposed as part of TTM 36544R1, Table 25, Total Project GHG Emissions, shows the Project’s estimated annual GHG emissions. As shown, the proposed Project evaluated herein is anticipated to result in annual GHG emissions of 5,843.33 MTCO2e per year.

Analysis of Project Impacts due to GHG Emissions
Comparing Table 24 with Table 25 shows that the proposed Project would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the project evaluated in the SHP EIR by approximately 360.08 MTCO2e/year as compared to the Approved Project evaluated by the SHP EIR, as shown in Table 26, Project GHG Emissions Compared to SHP EIR GHG Emissions.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 25 Total Project GHG Emissions
Source Emission (metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 170.90 6.35E-03 3.09E-03 3.62E-02 172.01 Mobile Source 4,432.11 0.17 0.20 5.82 4,502.63
Area Source 70.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.73
Energy Source 925.59 0.08 0.01 0.00 929.40
Water Source 67.77 0.37 0.01 0.00 79.86
Waste Source 22.62 2.26 0.00 0.00 79.13
Refrigeration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57
Total CO2e (All Sources) 5,834.33 MTCO2e/year
(UC, 2024, Table 14)
Table 26 Project GHG Emissions Compared to SHP EIR GHG Emissions Emission Source Total CO2e
Proposed Project 5,834.33
Approved Project 6,194.41
Net Emissions (Proposed – Approved) -360.08 MTCO2e/year (UC, 2024, Table 15)
The SHP EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a 26.7% reduction in GHG emissions as compared to a Business As Usual (BAU) project, which was below the identified threshold of significance of a reduction of

21.7% as compared to BAU. Given that the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be approximately 5.8% less than the GHG emissions associated with the Approved Project, it can be concluded that the proposed Project also would be well below the threshold of significance identified by the SHP EIR. On this basis, and consistent with the finding reached by the SHP EIR, Project impacts due to GHGs would be less than significant.

Although it can be concluded that the Project’s GHG impacts would be less than significant (consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR), the City’s CAP Update was approved subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, and as a result, all discretionary development projects are now required to comply with the CAP Update.

Compliance with the CAP Update can be determined through the CAP Update Screening Table. As noted above, projects that achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to the Screening Table are considered to have a less-thansignificant impact due to GHG emissions. A list of feasible measures from the CAP Update Screening Table is presented in Attachment C to the Project’s AQ/GHG Assessment (Technical Appendix C), and demonstrates that the proposed Project would be able to achieve the required 100 points per the CAP Update Screening Table.

Although the Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant and below the level of emissions associated with the Approved Project, new Mitigation Measure GHG-1 has been identified as part of this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR to ensure that future building permit applications demonstrate that the proposed Project has achieved the minimum required 100 points pursuant to the CAP Update Screening Table. It should be noted that new Mitigation Measure GHG-1 merely is being identified to ensure compliance with the City’s CAP Update, and is not being imposed due to any new or increased environmental impacts due to GHGs.

Implementation of the required mitigation would further ensure that the proposed Project’s impacts due to GHG

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

emissions would be less than significant and would remain below the level of emissions that would be associated with the Approved Project.

Conclusion
As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would result in an overall reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the Approved Project. Given that the SHP EIR determined that the Approved Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant, and because the Project’s level of GHG emissions would be approximately 5.8% lower than the GHG emissions associated with the Approved Project, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Project impacts due to GHGs further would be reduced with implementation of new Mitigation Measure GHG-1. It also bears noting that the proposed Project will be required to comply with more stringent emissions regulations and standards than existed at the time of the certification of the SHP EIR and approval of the Approved Project, further reducing its GHG emissions when compared to the impacts already analyzed in the SHP EIR. Accordingly, and based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and therefore concluded that the SHP project would result in a less-than-significant impact. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.F-18 to 4.F-19)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Pursuant to Section 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. The applicable plans, policies, or regulations that are relevant to the Project include the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) and the City’s CAP Update. As such, the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP Update is evaluated in the following discussion. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (as identified through compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan) also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2022 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32).

Project Consistency with City of Corona CAP Update
The purpose of the City of Corona CAP Update is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Corona. To address the State’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the City of Corona prepared its CAP Update to identify new GHG reduction targets that are consistent with the State policies in order to meet the requirements of SB 32.

The State recommends a 49% reduction below “existing” 2008 levels by 2030, and an 83% reduction below 2008 levels by 2050. To achieve reductions consistent with the State’s long-term emissions reduction goals, the CAP Update demonstrates that the City of Corona would reduce its GHG emissions from the 2030 BAU levels to 780,327 MTCO2e, which the CAP Update notes would exceed the 49 percent below 2008 levels reduction target of 890,378

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

MTCO2e for 2030. The CAP Update also demonstrates that the City of Corona would further reduce GHG emissions in the City of Corona from the 2040 BAU level to 593,585 MTCO2e by 2040, which would achieve the required 66 reduction below 2008 levels by 2040, which is an interim target established to assist the City in meeting its 2050 mandate to achieve an 83% reduction below 2008 levels by 2050. (Corona, 2019, Tables ES-2 and 10) At the time the SHP EIR was certified, the City’s CAP Update was not in effect. In order to ensure the proposed Project fully complies with the CAP Update, new Mitigation Measure GHG-1 has been identified, requiring the proposed Project to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to the CAP Update Screening Table. With implementation of new Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed Project would be fully consistent with the City’s CAP Update, and impacts due to a conflict with the CAP Update would be less than significant.

Project Consistency with SB 32/CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The CARB Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies the State’s progress towards the statutory 2030 target, while providing a path towards carbon neutrality and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. Recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the City of Corona CAP Update with implementation of new Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which in turn would ensure that the proposed Project is consistent with the CARB Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. In addition, 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, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the Project would not be inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to GHGs As indicated below in Table 27, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with applicable goals and policies related to GHGs. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with the General Plan’s GHG goals and policies would be less than significant.

Table 27 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal ER-13: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
City operations and community-wide sources 15% below
2008 levels by 2020, 49% below 2008 levels by 2030, and 66% below 2008 levels by 2040.

Consistent. The analysis presented in the SHP EIR
demonstrated that the Approved Project would meet or
otherwise would assist the City in meeting the City’s GHG reduction targets of 15% below 2008 levels by 2020, 49% below 2008 levels by 2030, and 66% below 2008 levels by 2040. The analysis presented herein demonstrates that the proposed Project would generate approximately 5.8%
fewer annual GHG emissions as compared to the Approved
Project; thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with this Goal.,
Policy ER-13.1: Maintain and periodically update a Not Applicable. Policy ER-13.1 provides direction to City

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
comprehensive Climate Action Plan that detail the City’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions and to ensure ongoing and sustained reduction of GHG emissions from all sectors to meet 2020, 2030, and 2040 reduction targets.
staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy ER-13.2: Encourage the maximum feasible energy
efficiency in site design, building orientation, landscaping, and utilities/infrastructure for all development and
redevelopment projects (residential, commercial,
industrial, and public agency) to support GHG emissions reductions.

Not Applicable. Policy ER-13.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to maximize energy efficiency through site design, and the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant and would further be reduced with mandatory compliance
with new Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

Policy ER-13.3: Evaluate opportunities to reduce energy use and the urban heat island effect through site and
building design, materials, and landscaping, such as
reflective roofs or pavement, vegetated roofs, pervious pavement, shade trees, and revegetation of paved areas.

Not Applicable. Policy ER-13.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, as a proposed medium-density
residential community that would be developed in
accordance with all current applicable building codes and requirements, including the 2022 version of Title 24
regulations, the Project’s level of energy consumption
would be less than significant.

Policy ER-13.4 Support the increase of clean energy supply to existing and new development and municipal facilities through means to include, but not be limited to onsite or other local renewable energy sources for new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

Consistent. Although Policy ER-13.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, the provision of solar panels on the rooftops of the proposed residential structures
would be required pursuant to the 2022 CalGreen
requirements.

Policy ER-13.5: Increase use of clean fuel and electric vehicles in the city through the support of the installation of electric vehicle infrastructure; explore opportunities to incentivize and/or facilitate installation of electric vehicle charging stations at convenient locations in Corona.

Not Applicable. Policy ER-13.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to promote the use of clean and electric vehicles, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy ER-13.6: Reduce solid waste sent to the landfills and associated community-wide GHG emissions by ensuring all properties have access to curbside solid waste, recycled materials, and green/organic waste programs; target
special programs for construction debris, household
hazardous waste, etc.

Consistent. All of the Project’s proposed residential uses would be served by curbside waste collection and recycling systems.

Policy ER-13.7: Support a wide variety of transportation related measures (e.g., active transportation, increased bus and rail transit, transportation system and demand
management, etc.) as articulated in the Circulation
Element to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in Corona.

Not Applicable. Policy ER-13.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to promote alternative forms of transportation and to implement the policies of the
General Plan Circulation Element and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Conclusion
As indicated in 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 the greenhouse gases. Impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

Mitigation Measures
The following new mitigation measure shall apply in order to ensure the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s CAP Update requirement to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to the CAP Update Screening Table.

It should be noted that new Mitigation Measure GHG-1 was incorporated in order to ensure Project consistency with the City’s CAP Update and is not intended to address any new or more severe impacts due to GHGs as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR. The mitigation measure reflects more stringent requirements for mitigation as compared to the mitigation measures identified by the SHP EIR, would serve to further reduce the Project’s GHG levels of GHG emissions, and would ensure the Project assists the City in achieving its State-mandated GHG reductions by 2050.

GHG-1 Climate Action Plan Update Compliance. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that appropriate building construction measures shall apply to achieve a minimum of 100 points per Appendix C to the City of Corona 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. The conceptual measures anticipated for the Project are listed in Attachment C of the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment (AQ/GHG Assessment), which is appended to this EIR Addendum as Technical Appendix C. The conceptual measures may be replaced with other measures as listed in the CAP Screening Tables (Appendix C to the CAP Update), as long as they are replaced at the same time with other measures that in total achieve a minimum of 100 points per Appendix C to the City of Corona CAP Update.

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating any
physical impacts associated with hazards or
hazardous materials (i.e., impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would result in the development of the currently largely undeveloped site with 292 residences, roads, landscaping, and detention basins, which would result in an increase in the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. During construction, the SHP EIR found that hazardous materials, such as gasoline and oil, would be used. During occupancy, the SHP EIR found that the residences household hazardous materials, such as pesticides, cleaners, paints, and pool supplies would be used and stored on site. However, the SHP EIR concluded

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

that compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential significant impacts regarding hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.G-11 to 4.G-12) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant hazards to the public or the environment associated with hazardous materials due to existing site conditions and during both construction and long-term operation. Each is discussed below.

Existing Site Conditions
A Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) previously was prepared for the SHP by Hillman Consulting in 2013 and was referenced in the SHP EIR. The Phase I ESA from the Approved Project found that the SHP site was not located on a site that is included the list of hazardous materials sites (Cortese List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Consistent with the conditions that existed at the time the SHP EIR was certified, the SHP property is vacant and undeveloped and contains no existing structures. Additionally, based on an updated review of Cortese List data resources available from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), none of the parcels that comprise the Project site are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Based on these findings, there are no conditions associated with the Project site’s existing condition or surroundings that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with the Project site’s existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. (DTSC, n.d.)
Construction Activities
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project site during construction of the Project. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum-based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be used 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 to requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DTSC, as well as the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pertaining to water quality. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. A less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Operation
The Project would entail the future development of 276 homes, private parks, public parks, pump stations/water tanks, and open space. None of the proposed uses (residential, recreational, and open space) are associated with the transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Household and other goods used by residential homes and retail uses that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such household goods. Residents and employees are required to dispose of household hazardous waste, including pesticides, batteries, old paint, solvents, used oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals, at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility. Also, as of February 2006, fluorescent lamps, batteries, and mercury thermostats can no longer be disposed in the trash. Furthermore, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are fully regulated by the EPA, State, and/or the County of Riverside. With mandatory regulatory compliance, and consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with the residential, recreational, public facility, and open space uses associated with long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: No Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP site is located further than onequarter mile from an existing or proposed school. The SHP EIR noted that while the SHP project would result in the development of 292 single-family residences and while hazardous materials are used in homes, the quantities generally are small. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that the SHP would not result in the handling or emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and no significant impact would occur. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.G-12) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the Approved Project, the site is located more than one-quarter mile away from any existing or proposed schools, with the nearest school (John Adams Elementary School) located approximately 0.5-mile from the SHP site.

Furthermore, as described above under the analysis for Thresholds a) and b), the use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to and from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards. Accordingly, there would be no potential for existing or proposed schools located within onequarter mile of the Project site to be exposed to substantial safety hazards associated with emission, handling, or the routine transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: No Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and concluded that the SHP

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, resulting in no impact. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.G-12)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted under the analysis of Thresholds a) and b), a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) previously was prepared for the SHP by Hillman Consulting in 2013 and was referenced in the SHP EIR. The Phase I ESA from the Approved Project found that the SHP site was not located on a site that is included the list of hazardous materials sites (Cortese List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Consistent with the conditions that existed at the time the SHP EIR was certified, the SHP property is vacant and undeveloped and contains no existing structures. Additionally, based on an updated review of Cortese List data resources available from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), none of the parcels that comprise the Project site are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Based on these findings, there are no conditions associated with the Project site’s existing condition or surroundings that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with the Project site’s existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. (DTSC, n.d.)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: No Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP site is located approximately three miles south of the Corona Municipal Airport and no private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the SHP site. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that the SHP project would not result in a safety hazard for people living in the subdivision as a result of a public airport or private airstrip. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.G-13) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project site is situated approximately 3.0 miles south of the nearest runways at the Corona Municipal Airport, which is the closest airport to the Project site (Google Earth, 2024). According to Map CO-1 of the Riverside Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Compatibility Plan for the Corona Municipal Airport, the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and compatibility zones for the Corona Municipal Airport do not extend south of State Route 91 (SR91). The compatibility zones identified by the Compatibility Plan encompass all lands surrounding the Corona Municipal Airport that have the potential to affect or be affected by airport operations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to airport-related hazards associated with the Corona Municipal Airport. Additionally, due to the distance between the Project site and the Corona Municipal Airport, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Accordingly, impacts due to public airport-related hazards would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. (Riverside County ALUC, 1993)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

g) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating any physical impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials (i.e., impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan)?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: No Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation associated with hazards or hazardous materials, and further found that the proposed residential subdivision would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. The SHP EIR concluded that the SHP project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policy, and no significant impacts would occur. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.G-13 to 4.G-15) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The City of Corona’s Draft 2023- 2028 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) outlines the City’s response to emergencies caused by natural disasters, human events, or technological incidents. This plan includes specific responsibilities and functions for each department, tailored to various disaster scenarios. However, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would consist of a residential development that is not associated with the use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. In the event of a natural disaster, the City would respond appropriately based on the methods and procedures outlined by the LHMP. However, based on a review of the City’s LHMP, there are no components of the proposed Project that have the potential to obstruct or interfere with implementation of the City’s LHMP. As discussed in further detail below under the discussion and analysis of Threshold h), the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1, which has been revised as part of this Addendum No. 1 to incorporate the recommendations of the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (FPP).

With implementation of the revised Mitigation Measure PS-1, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable provisions of the LHMP. Accordingly, impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, Table 28, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the Corona General Plan goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials (including airport-related hazards). As indicated in Table 28, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the General Plan goals policies related to hazards and hazardous materials. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with the General Plan’s goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with any relevant plans, policies, or regulations related to hazards or hazardous materials, nor would it interfere with an adopted emergency response plan.

Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

Table 28 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal PS-3: Ensure that the health, safety, and general
welfare of residents and visitors of the City of Corona, Consistent. The proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the City of Corona

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
including the overall health of the natural environment, is provided through good land use planning and strict
adherence and enforcement of the City of Corona
Hazardous Material Area Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan, California Fire Code, Certified Unified Program
Agency, and other pertinent sources and documents.

Hazardous Material Area Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan, California Fire Code, Certified Unified Program
Agency, and other pertinent sources and documents.

Policy PS-3.1: Enforce federal and state regulations and local ordinances in accordance with Certified Unified
Program Agency requirements that require all users,
producers and transporters of hazardous materials and
waste to clearly identify materials that they store, use or transport, and make available emergency response plans, emergency release reports, hazardous material inventory reports, and toxic chemical release reports to reduce the risk from natural or other hazards and effectively protect the community.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project, which does not include any uses associated with the use or transport of hazardous materials.

Policy PS-3.2: Require projects to comply with applicable land use regulation, building and fire codes, and local ordinances; determine the need for buffer zones/setbacks, building modifications, site design, operational changes, or other measures to minimize risk from hazardous materials.

Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all
applicable land use regulation, building and fire codes, and local ordinances, and the City of Corona has reviewed the Project’s proposed plans to ensure the plans accommodate appropriate buffer zones/setbacks and site design in order to minimize risk from hazardous materials.

Policy PS-3.3: Review and update the City of Corona’s
Hazardous Material Area Plan every three years as
required by the Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and implement policies contained therein. Ensure newly
developed and annexed areas of the City are included in the Plan and that the area plan policies are coordinated with those of adjacent municipalities.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to update its Hazardous
Materials Plan, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-3.4: Utilize local enforcement powers for land use regulation, code enforcement, and nuisance abatement to address the use and/or discharge of hazardous material to the air, ground, wastewater collection and storm drain
systems, groundwater, or surface water bodies.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to utilize local enforcement
powers for land use regulation, code enforcement, and
nuisance abatement, and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy PS-3.5: Actively work with federal, state, county, and responsible entities to ensure proper cleanup activities are undertaken in as a timely manner as possible and are
effectively managed to clean up contaminated sites so as to protect the public’s health and safety.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to work with federal, state,
county, and responsible entities to ensure proper cleanup activities are undertaken in as a timely manner, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-3.6: Continue to promote the safe disposal of hazardous and toxic substances that are used in private households through the support of the hazardous
materials collection efforts and address the long-term
need for a local facility working with the County.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to promote the safe disposal of hazardous and toxic substances, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-3.7: Coordinate hazardous material planning and appropriate response efforts with other City departments, Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to coordinate hazardous material

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
as well as local, county, and state agencies to maintain readiness to mitigate local impacts resulting from
hazardous material-induced emergencies.
planning with other departments and agencies, and is
unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-3.8: Require property owners of contaminated
sites to develop and implement, at their own expense, a site remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Riverside County and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and addresses contaminated
sites. Given that the Project site does not contain any hazardous materials under existing conditions, Policy PS3.8 is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-3.9: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and
implement restoration efforts to resources adversely
impacted by past urban and rural land use activities.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and relates to impacts from past urban and rural land use activities, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-4: Implement land use restrictions and review
procedures that encourage adequate protection of the
community, its residents, and business from airport land use and flight-related hazards.

Not Applicable. Goal PS-4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to implement land use restrictions
and review procedures related to airport-related hazards.

As the Project is located well outside of the AIA for the Corona Municipal Airport, Goal PS-4 is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-4.1: Protect flight paths from encroachment due to proposed development projects or redevelopment in
Corona by using the Riverside County ALUCP and Corona
Airport Master Plan to evaluate the consistency of
proposed land uses and development projects.

Consistent. The Project site is located 3.0 miles south of the nearest runway at the Corona Municipal Airport, and the Project site is not located within or in close proximity to the AIA and compatibility zones for the Corona
Municipal Airport. As such, the proposed Project would
not encroach into any protected flight paths and the
Project would be fully consistent with the ALUC’s
Compatibility Plan for the Corona Municipal Airport.

Policy PS-4.2: Regulate building heights, land use
intensities, and occupancies beneath airport approaches and departure paths consistent with the Riverside County ALUCP, the Corona Municipal Airport Master Plan, and all other applicable State and Federal regulations.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-3.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and relates to impacts from past urban and rural land use activities, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-4.3: Ensure that review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission for projects within the
airport influence area occurs within the early stages of the development review process by the City and prior to
project approval by the City.

Not Applicable. The Project site is located outside of the AIA for the Corona Municipal Airport; thus, review by the ALUC would not be required and as such, Policy PS-4.3 is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-4.4: Periodically review the Corona Municipal Airport Master Plan to update operational and safety
procedures, reflect State and Federal mandates, improve the use of airport property, and recommend land use
capability standards for land surrounding the airport.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-4.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to update operational and safety procedures, improve the use of airport property, and
recommend land use capability standards, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-4.5: Submit proposed projects to the ALUC for review if new development (including buildings, antennas, other structures) has a height exceeding:
• 35 feet in Compatibility Zone B1, B2, or a Height
Review Overlay Zone
Not Applicable. The Project site is not located within any of the compatibility zones for the Corona Municipal
Airport, and the Project does not include any buildings larger than 200 feet in height; thus, Policy PS 4.5 is not applicable to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
• 70 feet within Compatibility Zone C
• 150 feet within Compatibility Zone D or E
• 200 feet or taller regardless of their location
Policy PS-4.6: Periodically monitor the potential for wildlife hazards to the flights and operations of the Corona
Municipal Airport emanating from the Prado Basin,
retention basins, golf courses, Santa Ana River, or other areas. Comply with federal wildfire strike hazards
regulations if hazard exists.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-4.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to monitor the potential for
wildlife hazards to the flights and operations of the Corona Municipal Airport and adjust regulations as necessary, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-4.7: Periodically consult with the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Commission in matters affecting the operation of the Corona Municipal Airport and in
regard to proposed development within the Influence Area that affect the safety and operations of the airport.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-4.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to consult with the ALUC in
regard to land use decisions within the AIA, while the
Project site is not located within the AIA for any airport; thus, Policy PS-4.7 is not applicable to the proposed
Project.

Goal PS-11: Effective emergency response to disasters that limits the loss of life, curtails property damage and social dislocation, enhances emergency preparedness through
community education and self-help programs, and
minimizes damages and injuries.

Not Applicable. Goal PS-11 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to conduct effective emergency
response to disasters, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.1: Adhere to the Standard Emergency
Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) to coordinate effective
response to emergencies and disasters.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to adhere to the SEMS and NIMS to coordinate effective response to emergencies and
disasters, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.2: Maintain emergency and hazard mitigation plans; update and define roles of city departments and
other partnering agencies in the event of an emergency or disaster, ensuring interagency coordination and
collaboration with the Operational Area (SEMS).

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to maintain and update
emergency and hazard mitigation plans and interagency
coordination, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.3: Conduct periodic emergency management
exercises with city personnel and nearby jurisdictions to remain prepared for situations requiring multijurisdictional coordinated response.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to conduct periodic emergency management exercises, and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy PS-11.4: Maintain Structure Protection Plans and other pre-planning activities and plans to remain prepared for emergencies throughout the community.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to maintain Structure Protection Plans and other pre-planning activities and plans, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.5: Ensure that the Emergency Operations Plan and Standard Operating Procedures provide for efficient and orderly notification and evacuation on a citywide
basis. Ensure they address accessibility issues and mass notification capabilities utilizing our city, county, state, and federal communication systems.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to ensure the Emergency
Operations Plan and Standard Operating Procedures
provide for efficient and orderly notification and
evacuation on a citywide basis, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.6: Improve continuity of operations
capabilities to include the development of a City of Corona Continuity of Operations Plan, in addition to enhancing the Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to improve continuity of
operations capabilities, and is unrelated to the proposed

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Emergency Operation Center (EOC) readiness and the EOC
responder training and exercises, and continuously testing and improving upon the effectiveness of the Emergency
Operation Plan.

Project.

Policy PS-11.7: Sponsor and support the public education programs and outreach efforts referencing community
hazards, emergency preparedness, and response protocols and procedures. Target and partner with community
groups, schools, religious institutions, and business
associations (NIMS).

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to sponsor and support the
public education programs and outreach efforts
referencing community hazards, emergency preparedness,
and response protocols and procedures, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.8: Facilitate planning efforts to ensure
expeditious and coordinated recovery processes following any serious emergency/disaster.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to facilitate planning efforts to ensure expeditious and coordinated recovery processes
following any serious emergency/disaster, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.9: Ensure all local, state, and federal mandates are adhered to should the City proclaim a local emergency and request any state and/or federal funding.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to comply with local, state, and federal mandates should the City proclaim a local
emergency, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-11.10: Participate in the review and update of the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years in
coordination with all participating jurisdictions and
Riverside County Emergency Management Department;
implement goals and objectives therein to reduce risks
from hazards and guide decision-making.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-11.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to participate in the review and update of the Riverside County Operational Area MultiJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that with implementation of the fuel modification plan the SHP project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur with regard to wildland fires with implementation of applicable project design features and Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.G-15 to 4.G-17) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As more fully discussed herein in Subsection 2.19, Wildfire, the Project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) (Corona, 2020). Due to the location of the site within the urban/wildland interface area by the Cleveland National Forest and the development of the proposed residential subdivision, the Project would locate people within the wildland/urban interface area, which could pose a safety threat to the public.

In order to ensure the proposed Project does not expose future residents or structures to substantial risk involving wildfire hazards, and as more fully discussed herein in Subsection 2.19, Wildfire, a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

prepared for the Project by Dudek. This report is titled, “Fire Protection Plan, Skyline Heights Residential Project (Tract 36544),” is dated April 2024, and is included as Technical Appendix K (Dudek, 2025).

As documented in the Project’s FPP, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1, which has been extensively modified as part of this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR, based on the recommendations included in the Project’s FPP. As documented in the Project’s FPP, compliance with the revised Mitigation Measure PS-1 would ensure that the proposed Project facilitates emergency apparatus and personnel access throughout the Project site by incorporating fire apparatus access road widths of not less than 28 feet exclusive of shoulders. The measure further requires driveway and road improvements with turnarounds to provide access throughout the Project site. Pursuant to the requirements of CMC Title 15, Chapter 15.12 (Fire Code), water availability and flow would be required to be consistent with local and State code requirements for fire flow and fire hydrant spacing, including a minimum 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch residual (psir) for 2 hours for one- and two-family dwellings and 2,500 gpm at 20 psir for 2 hours for multifamily dwellings, and also requires fire hydrant spacing for one- and two-family dwellings at no less than 300 feet between hydrants and 250 feet for all other buildings, as measured from the Project’s primary emergency access routes. These features along with other provisions of the revised Mitigation Measure PS-1 that specify the ignition resistance of all buildings, require automatic interior fire sprinkler systems, and required pre-planning, training, and awareness would assist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and suppression capabilities. As required by CMC Chapter 15.12 and the revised Mitigation Measure PS-1, the Project’s fire protection systems would include a redundant layering of protection methods that have proven to reduce overall fire risk. The proposed fire safety measures would meet or exceed all applicable code requirements, are performance based and site-specific, and take into account the Project’s unique characteristics, rather than a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. The fire protection systems have been designed to increase building safety, as well as the safety of those occupying the building, reduce the fire risk on site, to minimize risks associated with typical uses, and aid the responding firefighters during an emergency. Accordingly, with mandatory compliance with applicable provisions of CMC Chapter 15.12 and the revised Mitigation Measure PS-1, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. (Dudek, 2025, pp. 1-4)
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply, as modified/supplemented below, in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials to below a level of significance.

Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measure were incorporated in order to reflect the recommendations of the Project’s FPP (Technical Appendix K), and reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.

PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Corona Fire Department (CFD) shall review the Project’s plans to ensure that the plans incorporate all applicable recommendations included in the Project-specific Fire Protection Plan (FPP), dated April 2024, prepared by Dudek, and included as Technical Appendix K to Addendum No. 1 to the Skyline Heights Project (SHP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition, the Project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Project’s FPP during the life of the proposed Project. The recommendations from the Projectspecific FPP include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
 All proposed structures shall be constructed of ignition resistant7 construction materials and shall include the installation of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D automatic interior fire sprinkler systems within all one- and two-family dwellings and NFPA 13R interior fire sprinkler systems within each multi-family unit, based on the latest adopted Building and Fire Code requirements for each occupancy type at the time of issuance of building permits.  Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) shall be provided around the perimeter of all structures, as required by the CFD, with the majority of the units within the Project site achieving a minimum of between 100 feet and feet of on-site fuel modification, as described in detail in subsection

5.4.1.1 (Project-Specific Fuel Modification Zone Treatments) of the Project’s FPP. For areas within the development where structures are unable to achieve up to 170 feet of onsite fuel modification, alternative materials and methods of construction shall be incorporated to provide the functional equivalency of the proposed 170-foot-wide fuel modification zones.

Alternative materials and methods shall be to the satisfaction of the CFD and may include structural hardening enhancements and/or landscape features, like non-combustible walls.  All vehicle access roadways shall meet the City of Corona construction standards for public and private streets, per Public Works Standards, Series 100, Street Standards. All emergency vehicle access roadways shall be approved prior to combustible construction and shall be of an all-weather surface (asphalt or concrete) and shall be certified as capable of supporting 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (per California Fire Code [CFC] Section 3310.01).  Landscape plantings shall not include any prohibited plants that have been found to be highly flammable and shall instead solely consist of CFD-approved plants for Fuel Modification or other species if submitted to and approved by the CFD.
 The Project’s Homeowners’ Association (HOA) shall be responsible for hiring a 3rd-party, CFDapproved FMZ inspector and landscape plan review to provide annual certification (written report submitted to CFD by May 1) that the HOA-maintained properties including all FMZs and meet the requirements of the Project’s FPP.
 Fire apparatus access roads (i.e., public and private streets) shall be provided throughout the residential community and may vary in width and configuration, but shall all provide at least the minimum 28-foot-wide required unobstructed travel lanes, lengths, turnouts, turnarounds, and clearances required by applicable codes, and shall be constructed of an allweather surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Primary access and internal circulation shall comply with the requirements of the CFD.  All structures would include automatic interior fire sprinkler systems meeting NFPA and CFD requirements for each occupancy type. Specifically, the installation of NFPA 13D automatic 7 A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently to reduce losses from wildlandurban interface conflagrations under worst-case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames, as prescribed in CBC, Chapter 7A and State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-5, Ignition-Resistant Materials.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

interior fire sprinkler systems within all one- and two-family dwellings and NFPA 13R interior fire sprinkler systems within each multifamily unit.
 Water capacity and delivery shall provide for a reliable water source for operations and during emergencies requiring extended fire flow and shall be to the satisfaction of the CFD.

The Project Applicant shall implement the fuel modification plan and other CFD-required fire life safety features prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

PS-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the “Fire Facilities Fund” as amended in Chapter 3.36 of the CMC to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD.

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Maps or other flood hazard delineation maps?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h. Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
j. Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
k. Comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan and
municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating a physical impact associated with
hydrology and water quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant hydrology and water quality impacts, two Project-specific technical studies were prepared for the Project by KWC Engineers (herein, “KWC”). The first report addresses hydrologic conditions and is titled, “Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report, Skyline Heights Project, Tract 36544” (herein, “Hydrology Study”), is dated February 2025, and is included as Technical Appendix H1 to this EIR Addendum (KWC Engineers, 2025a). The second report addresses water quality, is titled, “Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Skyline Heights)” (herein, “PWQMP”), is dated June 23, 2025, and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to this EIR Addendum (KWC Engineers, 2025b). a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that construction and operation of the SHP project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements regarding water quality, and concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

features, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of the SHP’s WQMP, would ensure that construction and operational water quality impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.H-23 to 4.H-26) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conditions that existed when the Skyline Heights EIR was certified, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (§ 13000 (“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. In June 2019, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted the most recent update to the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin, which originally was adopted by the RWQCB in 1995. The RWQCB’s 2019 Basin Plan is herein incorporated by reference and is available for public review at the Santa Ana RWQCB office located at 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501-3348. (RWQCB, 2019) The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of 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 resides within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Based on the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”; Technical Appendix F1), receiving waters for the property’s drainage and listed on Section 303(d) include Temescal Creek Reach 1, Santa Ana River Reach 3, and the Prado Dam. Temescal Creek is impaired by pH, while the Santa Ana River is impaired by bacteria and viruses (pathogens), copper (wet season) and lead. The Prado Dam is not listed as containing any Section 303(d) impairments. (KWC Engineers, 2025b, Table A.1) A specific provision of the CWA applicable to the Project is CWA Section 402, which authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program also requires operators of construction sites one acre or larger to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit. Provided below is a discussion of the Project’s potential to result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during both construction and long-term operation.

Construction-Related Water Quality
Consistent with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, construction activities would include the use of heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as fuels, oils, grease, solvents, and paints that would be stored in limited quantities on-site. In the absence of proper controls, these construction activities have the potential to result in accidental spills or disposal of potentially harmful substances used during construction that could wash into and pollute surface water or groundwater.

However, and consistent with the requirements that were in effect when the SHP EIR was certified, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, and also consistent with the project evaluated by the SHP EIR, the Project would be required to comply with the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (“Basin Plan”). Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Basin Plan involves the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for construction-related

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

activities, and these requirements also would have applied to new development at the time the SHP EIR was certified. The SWPPP is required to specify the Best Management Practices (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. As with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, does not result in substantial erosion or siltation, and does not otherwise substantially degrade water quality during construction activities. Therefore, with mandatory adherence to the future required SWPPP, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Operational Water Quality Impacts
The SHP EIR evaluated buildout of the Project site with a mixture of residential, recreational, public facilities, and open space land uses. The proposed Project evaluated herein is substantially similar to the Approved Project, but would include 16 fewer dwelling units and would result in an increase in open space areas (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55 acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under the proposed Project, which represents an increase of 22.0% compared to the Approved Project. Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Project includes a proposed system of storm drain pipes to convey the runoff across the site to the designated discharge points. The drainage collection and conveyance system is designed to convey the 100-year storm runoff. The onsite development would have a separate water quality piping system to convey the first flush runoff to designated treatment areas prior to discharge into the mainline storm drain systems, which would eliminate the comingling of development runoff with offsite runoff prior to discharge into the public storm drain system and/or existing drainage channels. Two detention basins (Detention Basin B and Detention Basin D) are proposed within the project site to mitigate the increased runoff flows from the proposed development.

As previously indicated, receiving waters for the property’s drainage include Temescal Creek Reach 1, Santa Ana River Reach 3, and the Prado Dam. Temescal Creek is impaired by pH, while the Santa Ana River is impaired by bacteria and viruses (pathogens), copper (wet season) and lead. The Prado Dam is not listed as containing any Section 303(d) impairments. According to the Project’s PWQMP (included as Technical Appendix H2), the Project’s pollutants of concern include bacterial indicators, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash/debris, and oil/grease. (KWC Engineers, 2025b, Tables A.1 and E.1) To meet NPDES requirements, the Project’s proposed storm drain system is designed to route first flush runoff to one of the two water quality basins. The detention basins have been designed to detain runoff and provide water quality treatment, which would be effective in reducing pollutants of concern in runoff leaving the Project site. As such, runoff from the Project site would not contribute substantially to existing downstream impairments, including sediments, and the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Furthermore, the Project would be required to implement the requirements of the Project’s PWQMP pursuant to the requirements of the applicable NPDES permit. The WQMP is a post-construction management program that ensures the on-going protection of the watershed basin by requiring structural and programmatic controls. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed Project is included as Technical Appendix H2. The Preliminary WQMP identifies structural controls (including the proposed water quality basins) and operational source control

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

measures (including marking inlets, incorporation of landscape/outdoor pesticide restrictions, etc.). The structural and operational source control measures would minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long-term operation. Accordingly, implementation of the Project’s proposed storm drain system would ensure that the proposed Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, does not result in substantial erosion or siltation, and does not otherwise substantially degrade water quality during construction activities. Therefore, with mandatory adherence to the Project’s operational WQMP, water quality impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP 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. As such, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts to groundwater resources would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.H-26 to

4.H-27)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, the Project would be served potable water by the City of Corona Utilities Department, and no wells are proposed on site; thus, the Project would have no impact on groundwater levels due to direct groundwater extraction. No impact would occur due to direct groundwater extraction.

With respect to groundwater recharge, the Project Applicant proposes to develop the site in a manner generally consistent with what was assumed for the Project site by the SHP EIR, except that the proposed Project would include 16 fewer dwelling units and would result in an increase in open space areas (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55 acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under the proposed Project, which represents an increase of 22.0% compared to the Approved Project. Thus, areas available for groundwater recharge on site also would increase by 22.0% compared to the Approved Project, and as such the proposed Project would have reduced impacts to groundwater recharge as compared to the Approved Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Furthermore, all runoff generated on the Project site under existing conditions sheet flows into the on-site drainages, with portions of the flows infiltrating into the ground with the majority of flows being conveyed to downstream areas, including Temescal Creek Reach 1, Santa Ana River Reach 3, and the Prado Dam. With implementation of the Project, runoff generated on site would be routed to one of several catch basins and storm drain lines, which would convey flows to one of the two water quality basins proposed on site. Runoff from these water quality basins ultimately would be conveyed to downstream facilities, where groundwater infiltration would continue to occur. Thus, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and there would be no net deficit in aquifer water volumes or groundwater table levels as a result of the Project. Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.
d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns of the site and area. The SHP EIR noted that post development runoff would be consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and the postproject site would not result in significant hydrology impacts downstream such that flooding or erosion would occur on- or off-site. Furthermore, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage. Overall, impacts regarding changes in drainage patterns and stormwater flows were concluded to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.H-27 to 4.H-31) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Under existing conditions, there are several existing canyons and ravines that run across the Project site which contain existing streams. Mabey Canyon is one of these blue line streams and is located on the northerly portion of the Project site, which currently drains to the existing Mabey Canyon Debris Basin. The Project would not involve any grading or alteration of the Mabey Canyon streambed. The other stream is unnamed and is located in the central portion of the Project site, which currently drains to the Kroonen Canyon Channel and Oak Street Reservoir located near Chase Drive and Mangular Avenue. As part of the Project, this unnamed stream would be filled in with an approximate 72-inch storm drain to convey the storm water runoff underground and discharge back into the existing stream at the easterly terminus of the Project site. Several other smaller tributaries also would be filled in within the development. The Project includes a system of storm drain pipes to convey the runoff across the site to the designated discharge points. Two detention basins (Detention Basin B and Detention Basin D) are proposed within the Project site to mitigate the increased runoff flows from the proposed development. As shown in Table 29, Peak Flow Comparison, implementation of the Project’s proposed drainage system would result in a net decrease in peak runoff from the Project site as compared to existing conditions. (KWC Engineers, 2025a, p. 2) Accordingly, because the Project’s proposed storm drain system is designed to include two detention basins that would detain runoff from the Project site such that there would not be an increase in flows as compared to existing

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

conditions, and because all site runoff would be controlled by the Project’s proposed on-site storm drain system, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. Additionally, because downstream drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from the Project site under existing conditions, and because the amount and rate of runoff under the proposed Project would be slightly decreased as compared to existing conditions, it also can be concluded that the Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

Furthermore, and as discussed under the analysis of Thresholds a), c), and f), the Project’s detention basins have been designed to address the Project’s pollutants of concern such that the Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

Table 29 Peak Flow Comparison
Area
Existing Q10
(cfs)
Proposed Q10
(cfs)
Difference Q10
(Prop-Exist)
Existing Q100
(cfs)
Proposed Q100
(cfs)
Difference Q100
(Prop-Exist)
A 19.1 20.0 0.9 30.1 31.3 1.2
B 65.0 116.7 51.7 103.0 185.0 82.0
C 450.9 420.8 -30.1 732.9 683.5 -49.4
D 106.6 100.6 -6.0 170.8 161.2 -9.6
Total 641.6 658.1 -16.5 1,036.8 1,061.0 -24.2
(KWC Engineers, 2025a, Table 2)
g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other flood hazard delineation maps? h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Would the Project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that Implementation of the SHP would not expose people and structures to flood hazards since residential pad elevation would be approximately 25 feet higher than the streambed flowline. In addition, the SHP EIR found that the site is not located within an area subject to inundation from a levee or dam failure. Given the site location the SHP EIR concluded that impacts from seiches, mudflows, or tsunamis would not occur. Therefore, the SHP determined that impacts related to flooding would be considered less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.H-32) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Map Nos. 06065C1351G and 06065C1353G produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, all portions of the Project site within Flood Zone X, which includes areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (FEMA, 2008a; FEMA, 2008b).

As such, no portion of the Project site is subject to flood hazards under existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

would not place housing within a 100-year flood plain and the Project would not place any structures within a 100- year flood plain that would impede or redirect flows. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, impacts due to flood hazards would be less than significant.

A seiche is an underwater wave that oscillates through a body of water which may be triggered by earthquakes or landslides. In general, seiches are small (on the order of a few inches) and are present in larger lakes as a result of the depth, temperature, and contours of the body of water. The Project site occurs along an existing hillside, and there are no large bodies of water within the Project vicinity capable of producing seiches, and there are no levees or dams at higher elevation than the Project site in the Project region. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and the Project would not be subject to inundation by seiches. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Project site is located approximately 23 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; thus, the Project would not be subject to inundation due to seiches, and no impact would occur.

As indicated by the Project’s geotechnical report (Technical Appendix G1), a review of regional geologic maps did not indicate the presence of landslides within or adjacent to the Project site. Although, a landslide complex was encountered and mapped during a previous investigation along the eastern boundary of the site on the southern side of Kroonen Canyon, this landslide complex occurs in the lower elevations of the Project site and has no potential to result in site inundation due to potential mudslides. Additionally, grading within this area would be subject to compliance with the recommendations of the Project’s Geotechnical Report, as discussed in further detail herein in Subsection 2.7, Geology and Soils. In addition, based on the Project’s proposed grading plan, the slope stability analysis conducted for the Project indicates a factor of safety greater than 1.5 and 1.1 for static and pseudo-static (seismic) loading conditions, respectively. Since the factors of safety for static and pseudo-static loading conditions exceed the required minimums, the proposed slopes are considered geotechnically stable and would not result in any mudflow hazards. Accordingly, impacts due to Project site inundation from mudslides would be less than significant. (LGC, 2019a, pp. 7-8, 12) Based on the preceding analysis, Project impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. k) Would the Project comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a physical impact associated with hydrology and water quality? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and Municipal Code) with regard to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that the SHP would result in a less-than-significant impact. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.H-32 to 4.H-35)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The previously certified SHP EIR determined that the Project would adhere to all relevant plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. Additionally, the Project would implement the applicable mitigation measure from the SHP EIR (HYD-1), which is designed to address potential hydrology-related impacts. This measure would ensure that any potential impacts are reduced to a lessthan-significant level. Furthermore, the discussion presented below in Table 30, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Hydrology and Water Quality, demonstrates that the proposed Project would be fully consistent with all applicable General Plan policies related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations intended to mitigate or avoid physical impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

Table 30 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Hydrology and Water Quality
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal IU-4: Adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for storm drainage and storage control
facilities to support permitted land uses and protect the health and safety of the public and environment.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to include a
storm drain system that would route all runoff generated on the developed portions of the Project site to one of two detention basins, which would provide water quality
treatment prior to discharge from the site. The drainage system has been designed such that there would be a
slight decrease in peak flows as compared to existing
conditions. Thus, and in conformance with this goal, the Project would be served by adequate storm drainage and
storage control facilities.

Policy IU-4.1: Review, evaluate, and regularly update the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan and related capital
improvement programs as a basis for the orderly planning, expansion, and improvement of facilities; implement
improvements identified in the Drainage Master Plan.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to regularly update the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan and related capital
improvement programs as a basis for the orderly planning, expansion, and improvement of facilities and to implement the Drainage Master Plan. No component of the proposed
Project would conflict with the City’s Drainage Master Plan.

Remaining portions of this policy are not related to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-4.2: Maintain and upgrade public storm drains and storage control facilities and construct or expand
storm drain and flood control facilities to protect people and property from flooding and stormwater runoff.

Implement improvements identified in the City’s Drainage Master Plan.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to include a
storm drain system that would route all runoff generated on the developed portions of the Project site to one of two detention basins, which would provide water quality
treatment prior to discharge from the site. As indicated under the analysis of Hydrology and Water Quality
Thresholds d) and e), the Project would not result in or be subject to flood hazards. Additionally, the Project’s
proposed drainage system would not conflict with the
City’s Drainage Master Plan.

Policy IU-4.3: Designate, preserve, and acquire land, as necessary, for storm drainage and storage control facilities.

As necessary, require the reservation of rights-of-way and Consistent. In conformance with this policy, all proposed storm drainage systems associated with the Project would occur either in roadway rights-of-way, or within individual

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
easements for designated water-related infrastructure
facilities as a condition of project approval.
lots established exclusively for drainage and water quality purposes.

Policy IU-4.4: Evaluate the adequacy of stormwater
conveyance and storage control facilities in areas where intensification of land use is anticipated to occur;
coordinate capital improvements planning for
infrastructure with the direction, extent, and timing of growth.

Consistent. Policy IU-4.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding the review of the adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The Project has been designed to include a storm drain system that would route all runoff generated on the developed portions of the
Project site to one of two detention basins, which would provide water quality treatment prior to discharge from the site, which the City has reviewed and determined
would adequately serve the Project’s proposed
intensification of use. Remaining portions of this policy are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-4.5: Review development proposals for projects within the City’s Sphere of Influence and encourage
Riverside County to not approve any project that cannot be accommodated with an adequate drainage system.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project occurs within the
City of Corona limits, and is not located within the City’s Sphere of Influence. Additionally, the City has reviewed the Project’s proposed drainage plan and determined that it would adequately serve the proposed development.

Policy IU-4.6: Annually review the development charge,
acquisition of service charge, and monthly service charges in order to ensure that adequate fees and charges are
collected to fund the operation, maintenance, and repair of existing facilities and construction of new facilities.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to regularly update fees and
charges related to storm water infrastructure, and is
unrelated to the proposed Project evaluated herein.

Policy IU-4.7: Require adherence to City regulatory
stormwater quality measures and, if needed, take
necessary enforcement action(s) to eliminate illicit
connections and discharges to/from the stormwater
system.

Consistent. The proposed Project has been designed to
adhere to all applicable City regulatory stormwater quality measures. The remaining portions of this policy related to enforcement actions for illicit connections and/or
discharges are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal IU-5: Ensure that urban runoff from existing and new development does not degrade the quality of the City’s
surface waters, groundwater system, and other sensitive environmental areas.

Consistent. As discussed under the analysis of Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds a), c), and f),
implementation of the Project’s proposed drainage system, which includes two detention basins that would provide
water quality treatment, would ensure that Project runoff does not degrade the quality of the City’s surface waters, groundwater system, or other sensitive environmental
areas.

Policy IU-5.1 Ensure that existing and new development
does not directly degrade or indirectly contribute to the degradation of surface waters or the groundwater system.

Consistent. As discussed under the analysis of Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds a), c), and f),
implementation of the Project’s proposed drainage system, which includes two detention basins that would provide
water quality treatment, would ensure that Project runoff does not degrade or indirectly contribute to the
degradation of surface waters or the groundwater system.

Policy IU-5.2: Reduce pollutant loading through passive treatment systems such as vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and infiltration/ sedimentation areas in suitable open space areas, overland flow channels, and landscaping Consistent. The Project has been designed to include a
storm drain system that would route all runoff generated on the developed portions of the Project site to one of two detention basins, which would provide water quality

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
adjacent to parking lots and streets. treatment prior to discharge from the site. All proposed drainage facilities are proposed in public roadway rights-ofway or within individual lots established exclusively for drainage and water quality purposes. The Project’s
proposed drainage system would reduce pollutant loading in accordance with City requirements.

Policy IU-5.3: In new developments, minimize the amount of impervious area that is directly connected to piped or channelized drainage systems.

Consistent. The proposed Project would increase open
space (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes,
drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55
acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under
the proposed Project, which represents an increase of

22.0% compared to the Approved Project. Areas proposed
for development include the minimum areas necessary to
accommodate the Project’s proposed uses. Thus, the
proposed Project would minimize the amount of
impervious area that is directly connected to piped or
channelized drainage systems, in conformance with this
policy.

Policy IU-5.4: Evaluate any existing environmental
degradation or potential degradation from current or
planned storm drain and storage control facilities in
wetlands or other sensitive environments.

Consistent. The Project’s potential to result in
environmental degradation or potential degradation as a result of the Project’s proposed storm drainage system has been evaluated throughout both the SHP EIR and this
Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR, both of which conclude
that with implementation of mitigation measures (as
modified/supplemented by this EIR Addendum) would
reduce all Project impacts, including impacts from the
Project’s storm drainage system to less-than-significant levels.

Policy IU-5.5: Require that development projects consider the appropriateness of the channelization of stormwater runoff to facilitate its possible capture and reuse for on-site irrigation and other purposes.

Consistent. Due to the site’s extensive topographic
variation and drainage characteristics, as well as the need to protect on- and off-site open space areas from impacts associated with reduced runoff, it would not be feasible to capture runoff from the Project site for reuse on site.

However, the Project would be served by recycled water by the City of Corona Utilities Department, which would
provide irrigation for common landscaped areas (e.g.,
along Project streets).

Policy IU-5.6: Implement environmentally and
economically efficient stormwater treatment systems,
whenever practical (such as artificial marshland sewer
treatment).

Consistent. The Project’s proposed stormwater drainage
system has been designed to be economically efficient, and the use of alternative systems, such as marshland sewer treatment, are not warranted for the proposed Project,
particularly considering the steep elevations and canyons that characterize the Project site.

Policy IU-5.7: Require developers to obtain a NPDES permit prior to moving construction equipment onto a
development site. The NPDES permit shall be retained at the construction site throughout the construction period, Consistent. The Project would be required to obtain an
SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES permit prior to
construction, and also would be subject to compliance
with a WQMP for long-term operations, in conformance

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and a copy shall be filed with the City Engineer. with the NPDES permit.

Policy IU-5.8: During construction projects, ensure
compliance with all terms and conditions outlined in the NPDES permit, including the implementation of the latest best management practices and determination of need for any additional water quality management plans to reduce pollutants and urban runoff flows to the maximum extent practicable.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-5.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to ensure development projects adhere to the NPDES permit and required BMPs, and is
unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable terms of the Project’s construction-related SWPPP and
long-term operational WQMP.

Policy IU-5.9: Require that new developments employ the most efficient drainage technology to control drainage and minimize damage to environmentally sensitive areas.

Consistent. The Project’s drainage system has been
designed to use the most efficient drainage technology and has been designed to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas to the extent feasible.

Policy IU-5.10: Require that individual project owners and operators handle, store, apply, and dispose of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances according to all federal, state, and local regulations.

Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Subsection 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, during both
construction and long-term operation the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to hazardous materials,
including pesticides and herbicides. Additionally, the
Project’s proposed detention basins have been designed to include water quality treatment measures to address
potential pollutants of concern, including pesticides and herbicides.

Goal PS-2: Adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public, property and economic losses, and community social and service functions from flooding and dam inundation events.

Consistent. As indicated under the discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds d) and e), the Project site is not subject to inundation from floods or due to failure of any dams, thereby ensuring the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the future Project residents and their property.

Policy PS-2.1 Maintain and continuously update the City’s floodplain safety hazards maps and dam inundation maps
in concert with FEMA map amendments, improvements to
local drainage facilities, and updated flood studies from individual projects or the State of California.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-2.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to maintain and continuously
update the City’s floodplain safety hazards maps and dam inundation maps in concert with FEMA map amendments,
improvements to local drainage facilities, and updated
flood studies, and is unrelated to the Project evaluated herein.

Policy PS-2.2 Evaluate, on a project-by-project basis,
whether new development should be located in a flood
hazard zone and identify and require construction methods or other appropriate methods to minimize the risks of
damage for projects located in flood zones.

Consistent. Although this policy primarily provides
direction to City staff and decision makers, the Project site is not located within any mapped flood zones. Thus, no
special construction measures are needed to minimize the risk of damage from flood hazard areas.

Policy PS-2.3 Require adherence to the California Building Code, Municipal Codes, FEMA flood control guidelines, and Corona Floodplain Management Ordinance for the
purposes of avoiding or minimizing the risk of damages to structures, injury, or loss of life.

Consistent. Although FEMA flood control guidelines and
Corona Floodplain Management Ordinance are unrelated
to the proposed Project as there are no FEMA-mapped
flood plains on site, the Project would be subject to
compliance with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code and CMC. Additionally, due to the lack of flood hazards on site, the Project would not risk damages

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
to structures, injury, or loss of life.

Policy PS-2.4 Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood zones; for those that must remain or are built in flood hazard zones, harden structures to maintain the structural and operational integrity of such public facilities in case of flooding.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-2.4 relates to new essential
public facilities, and no such essential public facilities are proposed as part of the Project.

Policy PS-2.5 Identify vulnerable structures, infrastructure, and utilities in areas of special flood hazards and
encourage the retrofit or upgrade of such structures and infrastructure to minimize damages and reduce the risk or injury or death from flooding.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-2.5 relates to vulnerable
structures, infrastructure, and utilities in areas of special flood hazards, while the Project site does not contain any mapped FEMA flood plains and thereby would not result in any flood-related damage to structures, infrastructure, or utilities.

Policy PS-2.6 Prohibit the alteration of natural floodplains or improved drainage areas or the allowance of
encroachments by structures without determination by
the Floodplain Administrator that such actions will not be detrimental to public health and safety.

Consistent. There are no FEMA mapped flood plains on
site; thus, the Project would not alter any natural
floodplains or improved drainage areas.

Policy PS-2.7 Establish and maintain cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including Riverside County Flood Control District, County Public Works, neighboring jurisdictions, and other entities.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-2.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to establish and maintain
cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection, and is unrelated to the proposed Project evaluated herein.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure from the SHP EIR shall apply and, consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality to below a level of significance.

HYD-1: For Drainage Management Area C, the final engineering for the drainage of Area C shall include a concrete impact basin energy dissipater and rip-rap and shall be designed in accordance with City standards. The outlet velocity shall be at or below the existing condition. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, the general
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would not physically divide established residential communities in the vicinity of the SHP site. The SHP EIR found that the Construction Traffic Management Plan would relegate haul traffic to major roadways and would not allow construction parking or staging in existing developed areas, and that the focus of project traffic at “P” Street would reduce project traffic through existing, adjacent residential neighborhoods. The SHP EIR also found that no existing uses would be removed and existing access to Skyline Drive and trails to the Cleveland National Forest would be retained. The SHP EIR concluded that impacts with respect to the physical division of an established community would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.I-11 to 4.I-15) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not result in the physical disruption or division of any established communities. The Project site abuts residential uses to the east, while lands to the northwest, west, and south of the Project site comprise undeveloped lands, most of which is associated with the Cleveland National Forest. Thus, the Project has no potential to result in the physical division of the existing residential uses in the area, all of which occur to the east of the Project site. Additionally, the proposed Project’s residential uses would represent the continuation of existing residential development patterns in the area, and public access through and along the perimeter of the Project site would be maintained. No impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would result in less-than-significant land use impacts with regard to consistency with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and Compass Blueprint Growth Vision, and the City of Corona General Plan. With the approval of the requested amendments to the General Plan, the SHP EIR concluded that the potential inconsistencies between the General Plan and the proposed SHP uses on the site would be resolved. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.I-15 to 4.I-24)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project has the potential to result in a conflict with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also referred to as “Connect SoCal,” as well as General Plan policies related to land use and planning. Project consistency with General Plan policies that relate to the subjects evaluated in this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR are provided under the appropriate subject headings throughout this Environmental Checklist. The Project’s consistency with Connect SoCal and General Plan policies related to land use and planning is provided below.

Project Consistency with Connect SoCal
As indicated in Table 31, Project Consistency with Connect SoCal, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the applicable policies from Connect SoCal. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with Connect SoCal would be less than significant.

Table 31 Project Consistency with Connect SoCal
2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency Mobility
System Preservation and Resilience

01. Prioritize repair, maintenance and preservation of the SCAG region's existing transportation assets, following a "Fix-It-First" principle
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 01 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

02. Promote transportation investments that advance
progress toward the achievement of asset management
targets, including the condition of the National Highway System pavement and bridges and transit assets (rolling stock, equipment, facilities and infrastructure)
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 02 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Complete Streets

03. Pursue the development of Complete Streets that
comprise a safe, multimodal network with flexible use of public rights-of-way for people of all ages and abilities using a variety of modes (e.g., people walking, biking, rolling, driving, taking transit)
Consistent with Applicable Components. As part of the
Project, and as discussed in the proposed SHSP, separate trails for hikers and bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway within the public park. Two raised bike
crossings at the road within the public park are designed to provide safe trail crossings for cyclists. Additionally, all onsite roadways would include sidewalks (including, in some areas, curb-separated sidewalks), and all on-site roadways would accommodate bicycle traffic. The Project’s proposed roadway and trail improvements would promote nonvehicular modes of transportation in the local area.

04. Ensure the implementation of Complete Streets that
are sensitive to urban, suburban or rural contexts and
improve transportation safety for all, but especially for vulnerable road users (e.g., people, especially older adults and children, walking and biking)

05. Facilitate the implementation of Complete Streets and curb space management strategies that accommodate and
optimize new technologies, micromobility devices and
first/last mile connections to transit and last-mile delivery

06. Support implementation of Complete Streets
improvements in Priority Equity Communities, particularly with respect to Transportation Equity Zones, as a way to enhance mobility, safety and access to opportunities

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency Transit and Multimodal Integration

07. Encourage and support the implementation of projects, both physical and digital, that facilitate multimodal
connectivity, prioritize transit and shared mobility, and result in improved mobility, accessibility and safety
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 07-11 provides direction to County and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

08. Support connections across the public, private and
nonprofit sectors to develop transportation projects and programs that result in improved connectivity

09. Encourage residential and employment development in areas surrounding existing and planned transit/rail stations

10. Support the implementation of transportation projects in Priority Equity Communities, particularly with respect to Transportation Equity Zones, as a way to enhance mobility, safety and access to opportunities

11. Create a resilient transportation system by preparing for emergencies and the impacts of climate change
Transportation System Management

12. Pursue efficient use of the transportation system using a set of operational improvement strategies that maintain the performance of the existing transportation system
instead of adding roadway capacity, where possible
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS policies 12 and 13 provide
direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

13. Prioritize transportation investments that increase travel time reliability, including build-out of the regional express lanes network
Transportation Demand Management

14. Encourage the development of transportation projects that provide convenient, cost-effective and safe
alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel (e.g., trips made by foot, on bikes, via transit, etc.)
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 14 relates to transportation projects and the proposed Project is not a transportation project. The Project entails the development of a proposed residential community, and the Project’s proposed roadway improvements and associated sidewalks on site would
provide convenient, cost-effective and safe alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel.

15. Encourage jurisdictions and TDM practitioners to
develop and expand local plans and policies to promote
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel for residents, workers and visitors
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 15 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

16. Encourage municipalities to update existing (legacy) TDM ordinances by incorporating new travel modes and
new technology and by incorporating employment and
residential sites of certain populations – for example, employers who have less than 250 employees (below the
250 or more employees threshold identified in AQMD’s
Rule 2202)
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 16 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Technology Integration

17. Support the implementation of technology designed to provide equal access to mobility, employment, economic
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 17 to 21 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency opportunity, education, health and other quality-of-life opportunities for all residents within the SCAG region
not applicable to the proposed Project.

18. Advocate for data sharing between the public and
private sectors to effectively evaluate the services’ benefits and impacts on communities while protecting data security and privacy

19. Advocate for technology that is adaptive and
responsive to ensure it remains up to date and meets the evolving needs of users and stakeholders

20. Promote technology that has the capacity to facilitate economic growth, improve workforce development
opportunities, and enhance safety and security

21. Proactively monitor and plan for the development,
deployment and commercialization of new technology as it relates to integration with transportation infrastructure Safety

22. Eliminate transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries (especially those involving vulnerable road users, such as people, especially older adults and children,
walking and biking) on the regional multimodal
transportation system
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 22 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

23. Integrate the assessment of equity into the regional transportation safety and security planning process,
focusing on the analysis and mitigation of disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 23 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Additionally, according to mapping available from the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Project site is not located within a Senate Bill (SB) 535 Disadvantaged Community.

24. Support innovative approaches for addressing transit safety and security issues so that impacts to transit
employees and the public are minimized and those
experiencing issues (e.g., unhoused persons) are supported Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 24 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

25. Support the use of transportation safety and system security data in investment decision-making, including
consideration of new highway and transit/rail investments that would address safety and security needs
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 25 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Funding the System/Users Fees

26. Promote stability and sustainability for core state and federal transportation funding sources
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 26 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

27. Establish a user fee–based system that better reflects the true cost of transportation, provides firewall protection for new and existing transportation funds, and represents equitable distribution of costs and benefits
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 27 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Additionally, the Project’s Traffic Study (EIR Technical Appendix J) identifies improvements, fair share contributions, and fee
contributions to the County’s DIF and/or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs, which would

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency ensure that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS).

28. Pursue funding tools that promote access to
opportunity and support economic development through
innovative mobility programs
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 28 to 31 provides
direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

29. Promote national and state programs that include
return-to-source guarantees while maintaining the
flexibility to reward regions that continue to commit
substantial local resources

30. Leverage locally available funding with innovative
financing tools to attract private capital and accelerate project delivery

31. Promote local funding strategies that maximize the
value of public assets while improving mobility,
sustainability and resilience
Communities
Priority Development Areas

32. Promote the growth of origins and destinations, with a focus on future housing and population growth, in areas with existing and planned urban infrastructure that
includes transit and utilities
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 32 and 33 provide
direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

33. Promote the growth of origins and destinations, in
areas with a proclivity toward multimodal options like
transit and active transportation, to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) dependency and vehicle miles traveled

34. Seek to realize scale economies or a critical mass of jobs and destinations in areas across the region that can support non-SOV options and shorter trip distances,
combined trips and reduced vehicle miles traveled
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 32 and 33 provide
direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers, and relates to job and destination-oriented land uses that are not proposed as part of the Project, which consists of a proposed residential community.

Housing the Region

35. Encourage housing development in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic,
educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region
Consistent. The Project would entail the development of 276 single-family dwelling units on site, and all of the proposed residential units would have proximate access to City resources and amenities available within the
developed portions of the City to the east of the Project site.

36. Encourage housing development in transit-supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and
resilient communities
Consistent. The proposed Project consists of the logical extension of existing residential development in the local area, and the Project includes amenities, including trails and curb-separated sidewalks, that would promote nonvehicular modes of transportation.

37. Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting
additional housing needs across the region
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 37 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Additionally, the Project site is not targeted for affordable housing by the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency City of Corona General Plan Housing Element.

38. Prioritize communities that are vulnerable to
displacement pressures by supporting community
stabilization and increasing access to housing that meets the needs of the region
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 38 to 41 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

39. Promote innovative strategies and partnerships to
increase homeownership opportunities across the region
with an emphasis on communities that have been
historically impacted by redlining and other systemic
barriers to homeownership for people of color and other marginalized groups

40. Advocate for and support programs that emphasize
reducing housing cost burden (for renters and
homeowners), with a focus on the communities with the
greatest needs and vulnerabilities

41. Support efforts to increase housing and services for people experiencing homelessness across the region
15-Minute Communities

42. Promote 15-minute communities as places with a mix
of complementary land uses and accessible mobility
options that align with and support the diversity of places (or communities) across the region. These are communities where residents can either access their most basic, day-today needs within a 15-minute walk, bike ride or roll from their home or as places that result in fewer and shorter trips because of the proximity of complementary land uses Consistent. The Project site is located in the western
portion of the City of Corona with proximate access to jobs and services, and the Project incorporates trails and
sidewalks to promote non-vehicular forms of
transportation.

43. Support communities across the region to realize 15- minute communities through incremental changes that
improve equity, quality of life, public health, mobility, sustainability, resilience and economic vitality
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 43 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

44. Encourage efforts that elevate innovative approaches to increasing access to neighborhood destinations and
amenities through an array of people-centered mobility
options
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 44 provides direction to County and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making

45. Advance community-centered interventions, resources and programming that serve the most disadvantaged
communities and people in the region, like Priority Equity Communities, with strategies that can be implemented in the short-to-long-term
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 45 to 47 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

46. Promote racial equity that is grounded in the
recognition of the past and current harms of systemic
racism and one that advances restorative justice

47. Increase equitable, inclusive, and meaningful
representation and participation of people of color and disadvantaged communities in planning processes

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency Environment
Sustainable Development

48. Promote sustainable development and best practices
that enhance resource conservation, reduce resource
consumption and promote resilience
Consistent. As presented throughout this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR, the Project’s impacts to the environment would be less than significant or would be reduced to the maximum feasible extent with the implementation of
mitigation measures. Additionally, the analysis presented herein in Subsection 2.6, Energy, with mandatory
compliance with applicable federal and State regulations and requirements, including the provisions of the Title 24 Building Energy Standards, Project construction and
operation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

49. Support communities across the region to advance
innovative sustainable development practices
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 49 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

50. Recognize and support the diversity of communities
across the region by promoting local place-making,
planning and development efforts that advance equity,
mobility, resilience and sustainability
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 50 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Air Quality

51. Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts
Consistent with Applicable Components. As evaluated
herein and in Subsections 2.3, Air Quality, and 2.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project’s emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for
criteria pollutants, and the Project would not subject
nearby sensitive emission receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Project would be constructed in full compliance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards, and would promote non-vehicular forms of
transportation.

52. Support investments that reduce hazardous air
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions

53. Reduce the exposure and impacts of emissions and
pollutants and promote local and regional efforts that
improve air quality for vulnerable populations, including but not limited to Priority Equity Communities and the AB 617 Communities
Clean Transportation

54. Accelerate the deployment of a zero-emission
transportation system and use near-zero-emission
technology to offer short-term benefits where zeroemissions solutions are not yet feasible or commercially viable
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 54 to 57 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

55. Promote equitable use of and access to clean
transportation technologies so that all may benefit from them

56. Consider the full environmental life cycle of clean transportation technologies, including upstream
production and end of life as an important part of meeting SCAG’s objectives in economic development and recovery, resilience planning and achievement of equity

57. Maintain a technology-neutral approach in the study of,

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency advancement of and investment in clean transportation
technology
Natural and Agricultural Lands Preservation

58. Prioritize the climate mitigation, adaptation, resilience and economic benefits of natural and agricultural lands in the region
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 58 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

59. Support conservation of habitats that are prone to
hazards exacerbated by climate change, such as wildfires and flooding
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 59 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

60. Support regional conservation planning and
collaboration across the region
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 60 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

61. Encourage the protection and restoration of natural habitat and wildlife corridors
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 49 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Additionally, the Project would preserve approximately 182.48 acres of the Project site as open space (i.e., natural open space,
manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks), representing a 22.0% increase in open space areas on site as compared to the Approved Project.

62. Encourage the conservation and viability of agricultural lands to protect the regional and local food supply and ensure the sustainability of local agriculture as a vital part of the region’s economy
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 49 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. In addition, the Project site contains no agricultural lands under existing conditions (as discussed herein in Subsection 2.2).

63. Encourage policy development of the link between
natural and agricultural conservation with public health Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 63 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Climate Resilience

64. Prioritize the most vulnerable populations and
communities subject to climate hazards to help the people, places and infrastructure that are most at risk for climate change impacts. In doing so, recognize that disadvantaged communities are often overburdened
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Polices 64 to 68 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers, and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

65. Support local and regional climate and hazard planning and implementation efforts for transportation, land use, and other factors

66. Support nature-based solutions to increase regional resilience of the natural and built environment

67. Promote sustainable water use planning, practices and storage that improve regional water security and resilience in a drier environment

68. Support an integrated planning approach to help local jurisdictions meet housing production needs in a drier
environment

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency Economy
Goods Movement

69. Leverage and prioritize investments, particularly where there are mutual co-benefits to both freight and
passenger/commuter rail
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 69 to 73 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

70. Prioritize community and environmental justice
concerns, together with economic needs, and support
workforce development opportunities, particularly around deployment of zero-emission and clean technologies and
their supporting infrastructure

71. Explore and advance the transition toward zeroemission and clean technologies and other transformative technologies, where viable

72. Advance comprehensive, systems-level planning of
corridor/supply chain operational strategies that is
integrated with road and rail infrastructure and inland port concepts

73. Ensure continued, significant investment in a safe, secure, clean and efficient transportation system –
including both highways and rail – to support the
intermodal movement of goods across the region
Broadband

74. Support ubiquitous regional broadband deployment
and access to provide the necessary infrastructure and
capability for Smart Cities strategies—to ensure the
benefits of these strategies improve safety and are
distributed equitably
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 74 to 79 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

75. Develop networks that are efficient, scalable, resilient and sustainable to support transportation systems
management, operations services and “tele-everything”
strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled, optimize efficiency and accommodate future growth of regional
economies

76. Encourage investments that provide access to digital activities that support educational, financial and economic growth

77. Advocate for current, accurate data to identify
opportunity zones and solutions that support the
development of broadband services to community anchor
institutions and local businesses

78. Promote an atmosphere that allows for healthy
competition and speed-driven innovative solutions while remaining technologically neutral

79. Use a bottom-up approach to identify and support a
community’s broadband needs

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2024-2050 RTP/SCS Regional Planning Policies Project Consistency Universal Basic Mobility

80. Encourage partnerships and policies to broaden safe and efficient access to a range of mobility services that improve connections to jobs, education and basic services Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 80 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project site is located in a portion of the City with proximate access to basic services and employment
opportunities, with the nearest existing bus stop occurring approximately 1.2 miles east of the site.

81. Promote increased payment credentials for
disadvantaged community members and the transition of
cash users to digital payment technologies to address
payment barriers
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policy 81 provides direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Workforce Development

82. Foster a positive business climate by promoting
regional collaboration in workforce and economic
development between cities, counties, educational
institutions and employers
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 82 to 86 provide direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

83. Encourage inclusive workforce development that
promotes upward economic mobility

84. Support entrepreneurial growth with a focus on
underrepresented communities

85. Foster a resilient workforce that is poised to effectively respond to changing economic conditions (e.g., market
dynamics, technological advances and climate change)

86. Inform and facilitate data-driven decision-making about the region’s workforce
Tourism

87. Consult and collaborate with state, county and local agencies within the region that are charged with promoting tourism and transportation
Not Applicable. RTP/SCS Policies 87 and 88 provide
direction to City and regional agency staff and decision makers and are not applicable to the proposed Project.

88. Encourage the reduced use of cars by visitors to the region by working with state, county and local agencies (e.g., park services, transportation agencies) to highlight and increase access to alternative options, including
transit, passenger rail and active transportation
Project Consistency with City of Corona General Plan Policies Related to Land Use and Planning As indicated in Table 32, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the applicable General Plan goals and policiesrelated to land use and planning. In addition, the Project’s consistency with other General Plan policies related to the subject areas evaluated in this Environmental Assessment are addressed under the appropriate subject headings herein, and also demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with all applicable General Plan goals and policies. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with City of Corona General Plan would be less than significant.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 32 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Land Use and Planning Goal/Policy Project Consistency
General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies
Goal LU-1: A community that contains a diversity of land uses that support the needs of and provide a high quality of life for its residents, sustain and enhance the City’s economy and fiscal balance, are supported by adequate
community infrastructure and services, and are compatible with the environmental setting and resources.

Consistent. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan, which reflects the City’s implementation of this goal.

Policy LU-1.1: Accommodate uses that support the
diverse needs of Corona’s residents, including
opportunities for living, commerce, employment,
recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic
engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with natural open spaces.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-1.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-1.2 Emphasize the development of uses that
sustain Corona as a cohesive, distinct, and self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel to surrounding communities for retail goods, services, and employment.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-1.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-1.3 Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Corona’s fiscal viability and account for current and
emerging market demands, while maintaining and
improving the quality of life for current and future
residents.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-1.4 Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, etc.)
Consistent. The Project’s proposed land uses are fully
consistent with the City of Corona General Plan Land Use Plan, which accommodates the types, densities, and mix
of land uses that can be adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure and public services Policy LU-1.5 Accommodate land use development in
balance with the preservation and conservation of open
spaces for recreation, aesthetic relief, natural resource value, and public safety (such as floodways, seismic fault zones, and other).

Consistent. The proposed Project would increase open
space (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes,
drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55
acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under
the proposed Project, which represents an increase of

22.0% compared to the Approved Project. Areas proposed
for open space include biologically sensitive lands and preservation/restoration areas.

Goal LU-2: A cohesive and integrated city of distinct and vital commercial and business districts and livable
residential neighborhoods, correlated with supporting
transportation and utility infrastructure that sustain
natural open spaces, hillsides, and canyons.

Consistent. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan, which reflects the City’s implementation of this goal.

Policy LU-2.1 Design development to reflect Corona’s
unique physical setting considering its natural topography, environmental resources, and natural hazards by including vegetation management zones and emergency access
Consistent. The Project has been designed to address the site’s steep hillsides while avoiding and preserving sensitive areas of the site as natural open space.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
roads within the project boundary.

Policy LU-2.2 Require that land uses be located and
designed to reflect and incorporate the property’s natural drainage courses, to the extent feasible in consideration of public safety and habitat preservation.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to avoid the
existing on-site drainage courses to the maximum feasible extent, and the Project would be subject to mitigation
measures addressing impacts to the site’s drainages.

Policy LU-2.3 Concentrate land uses within prescribed
areas to minimize impacts on natural environmental
resources and maximize the efficiency of supporting
infrastructure, transit use, and the vitality of Corona’s activity and business centers.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to concentrate proposed land uses in upland areas and away from
sensitive biological habitats to the extent feasible, and the Project’s intensity would support future expanded transit service in the local area.

Policy LU-2.4 Maintain and reinforce the City’s urban form and pattern of viable commercial and business centers and residential neighborhoods; prevent incompatibilities in land uses that could detract from the appearance, quality, or functioning of each area.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-2.4 relates to the interface
between commercial/business centers and residential
properties, while the Project is located in a portion of the City that does not abut any commercial or business center uses.

Policy LU-2.5 Prioritize and reinforce the revitalization of Corona’s historic Downtown as a major activity center.

Encourage mixed land-uses to maximize customer base
and access to transportation and public services.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-2.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-2.6 Maintain a land use pattern that
accommodates a diversity of commercial districts that are differentiated by their function, customer base, and
physical character and avoid unnecessary competition.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-2.6 relates to commercial
districts, while the Project consists of a proposed
residential community that is not located adjacent to any commercial districts.

Policy LU-2.7 Promote the re-use of economically obsolete and inefficient commercial corridors by consolidating retail and supporting uses into distinct activity nodes and
redeveloping intervening areas for mixed use projects that integrate commercial and residential uses or single
residential projects.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-2.7 relates to redevelopment
within commercial and mixed use corridors, while the
Project consists of a proposed new development on
previously undeveloped land.

Policy LU-2.8 Integrate a complementary mix of open
spaces (including parks, trails, and landscaping) within the City’s existing urban fabric to enhance character, soften hardscapes, beautify the community, and create a high
quality of life.

Consistent. The Project accommodates 11.42 acres of
public and private parks, and the Project accommodates
approximately 171.06 acres of natural open space,
manufactured slopes, and drainage basins.

Goal LU-3: A development pattern that retains and
complements the City’s important residential
neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, and open spaces.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed development pattern
would be consistent with the existing residential
development patterns that occur to the east of the Project site, and the Project would have no adverse effects on the character of any existing residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.1 Permit land uses and development consistent with the Corona General Plan Land Use Designations
Consistent. The Project’s proposed land uses fully conform to the Project site’s existing General Plan Land Use
Designations.

Policy LU-3.2 Require that development not exceed the
maximum density of land use designations allowed by the general plan and implemented through zoning districts.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed land uses are fully
consistent with the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and also are fully consistent with the range of uses allowed under the site’s

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
adopted zoning classifications.

Policy LU-3.3 Allow flexibility in the defined land use types, densities, and intensities to account for changes in housing needs and characteristics, industrial and employment
markets, and retail commercial enterprises that will occur during the implementation of this plan. Such deviations shall be considered only when found to be consistent with the plan’s vision, goals, and overall policy intentions for community places, character, economy, environmental
sustainability, and public safety.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-3.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and relates to employment generating uses, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal LU-4: Strategic growth that preserves viable
residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts, targets new development to parcels that are
environmentally suitable and can be supported by
infrastructure and services, and re-uses appropriate
properties to enhance their economic vitality and
community livability.

Consistent. No component of the proposed Project would
adversely affect any existing residential neighborhoods or commercial and industrial districts, and adequate
infrastructure exists or is proposed to support the Project’s proposed land uses.

Policy LU-4.1 Accommodate future growth and
development in accordance with Figure LU-1, the land use plan. This depicts lands on the City’s periphery and within the existing urbanized area for which development may be considered for re-use and intensified development.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed land uses are fully
consistent with the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Policy LU-4.2 Distribute and phase the timing of
development to protect the viability, character, and quality of existing residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial/business areas.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-4.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-4.3 Allow for the development of vacant lands on the periphery of existing development that complements
the scale and pattern of existing uses; protects significant plant, animal, and other natural environmental resources by keeping vegetation management zones and emergency
access roads within the project boundary; protects
development and population from natural hazards; and
where it is logical and feasible to extend infrastructure.

Consistent. The Project consists of a proposed residential development on currently vacant lands that has been
designed to complement the scale and pattern of existing residential communities to the east while minimizing
potential impacts to sensitive natural resources to the maximum feasible extent.

Policy LU-4.4 Proactively promote the adaptive re-use and infill of economically underutilized, obsolete, and
dilapidated commercial and industrial sites within existing urbanized areas, in consideration of the uses, scale, and character of adjoining uses.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-4.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-4.5 Manage the timing of development and allow development to occur only when public infrastructure and services needed to support that development are
available, will be provided concurrently, or are committed to be provided within a reasonable time frame.

Consistent. All necessary public infrastructure and services needed to serve the proposed Project already are in place or are proposed as part of the Project.

Goal LU-5: Distinct and well-maintained neighborhoods
and districts that contribute to the identity, character, and Consistent. The Project has been designed to establish
distinct and well-maintained neighborhoods and district

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
image of Corona as a livable, diverse, innovative, and
environmentally sustainable community.
that would contribute to the identity, character, and image of Corona as a livable, diverse, innovative, and
environmentally sustainable community.

Policy LU-5.1 Promote development and revitalization of neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, and public places that are distinguished by their physical
design, image, effectiveness in nurturing community
socialization and economic activity, and perception as
valued places.

Consistent. The Project consists of a proposed residential development that includes amenities that would
distinguish the proposed community in terms of physical design, image, and effectiveness in nurturing community socialization.

Policy LU-5.2 Promote development patterns and
structures that recognize and maintain the historic
character of recognized heritage properties and those that have potential to become eligible for historical significance.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.2 relates to development
adjacent to historic and heritage properties, and the
Project site is not located within close proximity to any such properties.

Policy LU-5.3 Distinguish the city’s neighborhoods and
districts in their character and physical appearance by considering their physical and visual separation, edge and entry treatment, architecture, landscape, streetscape, and comparable elements during their design and
development.

Consistent. Future development on site would be required to comply with the Development Standards and Design
Guidelines of the proposed SHSP, which would ensure the community is developed in a manner that considers
physical and visual separation, edge and entry treatment, architecture, landscape, streetscape, and comparable
elements.

Policy LU-5.4 Encourage preparation of Specific Plans for large vacant lands planned for residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed-use purposes, or for the re-use of existing multiple properties where the intent is to establish a cohesive district.

Consistent. In conformance with this policy, the Project includes an application for the proposed SHSP, which
would help to establish a cohesive residential district on the Project site.

Policy LU-5.5 Enhance Corona’s system of parks,
greenways, and open spaces by linking these and
surrounding natural areas, including along the Temescal Creek, with pedestrian trails and greenways where
feasible.

Consistent. The Project accommodates 11.42 acres of
public and private parks, and the Project accommodates
approximately 171.06 acres of natural open space,
manufactured slopes, and drainage basins. The Project’s proposed parks would be connected by sidewalk and trail connections to natural trail systems on site that would be maintained as part of the Project.

Policy LU-5.6 Require the submittal and approval of
landscape plans for all development projects consistent with adopted ordinances and guidelines; encourage
sustainable practices for landscape materials, design,
irrigation, and maintenance.

Consistent. The Project’s application materials include a landscape plan that complies with all adopted ordinances and guidelines, and promotes sustainable practices by
incorporating drought-tolerant plants.

Policy LU-5.7 Require property owners and tenants to
maintain landscaping, remove weeds, and replace
unhealthy or dead landscape; enforce landscape
maintenance through proactive enforcement.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-5.8 Encourage developers to incorporate mature, specimen trees and other significant landscaping that may exist on the site into the design of the project.

Consistent. As discussed herein in Subsection 2.4, and in conformance with City requirements, the Project would be required to replace oak trees impacted by the Project at no less than a 2:1 ratio, with replacement oak trees proposed to be planted in the on-site open space areas.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU-5.9 Require adherence to the design and
development guidelines as subsequently stipulated by this plan’s policies for each land use district, as well as
implementing ordinances and specific plans.

Consistent. As demonstrated through the analysis
provided herein, the Project would comply with all
applicable design and development guidelines
promulgated by the City’s General Plan and/or the
proposed SHSP.

Policy LU-5.10 Promote quality development through site design, architectural elements, and landscaping
characteristics that make Corona a desirable place to live and work and respond to the local context.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to promote
quality development through site design, architectural
elements, and landscaping characteristics, and the Project would be subject to compliance with the development
standards and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP,
thereby ensuring the Project contributes towards making the City of Corona a desirable place to live and work.

Policy LU-5.11 Require projects to implement appropriate building orientation, setbacks, buffering, privacy, and vehicle access as well as mitigate potential impacts
associated with noise and lighting in order to be
compatible with adjacent land uses.

Consistent. The Project would be require to comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC, including those
related to building orientation, setbacks, buffering, privacy, and vehicle access, and the Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts due to noise and lighting (as discussed herein in Subsections 2.13 and 2.1, respectively.

Policy LU-5.12 Require that development in
neighborhoods, districts, and other community activity
centers be designed to accommodate public gatherings
and pedestrian activity.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.12 relates to community
activity centers, and the Project site is not located within any existing activity centers.

Policy LU-5.13 Require that new master-planned residential subdivisions incorporate parks, greenways, and open
spaces as character-defining amenities for their residents, emphasizing the retention of natural landforms and
important plant communities.

Consistent. The Project includes 11.42 acres of public and private parks, and the Project accommodates
approximately 171.06 acres of natural open space,
manufactured slopes, and drainage basins that would
preserve natural landforms and important plant
communities to the extent feasible.

Policy LU-5.14 Support the conservation, maintenance, and upgrading of housing, commercial buildings, and historic structures through education, technical and financial
assistance, and partnerships.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.14 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and relates to existing housing, commercial buildings, and historic structures, and is
unrelated to the proposed Project, which is proposed on a previously undeveloped property.

Policy LU-5.15 Require that new and rehabilitated
structures be designed, built, and maintained in a manner that promotes their physical longevity, and at the same time provide architectural details consistent with the City’s design guidelines and other applicable codes and
ordinances.

Consistent. All structures proposed as part of the Project would be designed, built, and maintained in a manner that promotes their physical longevity. All proposed residential structures would be required to comply with the
residential design guidelines contained in the proposed SHSP, and would be subject to compliance with all
applicable codes and ordinances.

Policy LU-5.16 Maintain proactive code enforcement and
nuisance abatement programs to ensure that properties in Corona’s residential neighborhoods and business and
service districts are properly maintained in order to
preserve the quality and appearance of developed
properties, making the city a desirable place to reside and/or conduct commerce.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.16 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU-5.17 Promote and support community efforts for the renovation of structures and facilities; work with local organizations to educate residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutional property owners and tenants regarding property maintenance.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-5.17 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and relates to renovation of
structures and facilities, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal LU-6: A community that promotes sustainability in
the planning, design, and construction of developments to create a more livable community and achieve broader
economic and environmental objectives.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to avoid
impacts to the environment to the maximum feasible
extent, and the Project would be subject to compliance
with all applicable mitigation measures from the SHP EIR (as modified/supplemented herein) to ensure that all
Project impacts remain below a level of significance.

Policy LU-6.1 Promote sustainable features in new
construction and significant renovations, including the use of locally sourced, recycled, and sustainable-sourced
building materials, energy- and water-efficient building design, integrated renewable energy and energy storage
systems, and waste minimization during construction.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-6.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-6.2 Require that new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development be designed to minimize consumption of and sustain scarce environmental
resources through:
• Site design—concentration and intermixing of
development to minimize vehicular trips and promote
walking and building orientation for solar access and
heat gain and loss
• Landscaping—drought-tolerant species, use of
recycled water for irrigation, and other purposes
• Capture of rainwater and re-use on site
• Building design and construction materials—energyand water efficient fixtures, recycled building materials, insulation and wall thickness, permeable
paving surfaces, and comparable techniques
Consistent. The Project has been designed to minimize the consumption of scarce environmental resources by
concentrating residential development in upland areas, by incorporating drought-tolerant species in the Project’s landscape plan, and the Project would be subject to
compliance with the current Title 24 standards that
promote energy and water efficiency.

Goal LU-7: Residential neighborhoods that contain a
diversity of housing and supporting uses to meet the needs of Corona’s residents and that are designed to enhance
livability and a high quality of life.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed TTM 3654R1 would
subdivide the 249.39-acre property to provide for 144
residential lots on 45.75 acres to accommodate up to 276 dwelling units, and would include a diversity of housing types including 93 single-family detached housing units on minimum 7,200 s.f. lots, three custom single-family lots, 104 eight-cluster single-family detached housing units, and 77 four-cluster single-family detached housing units.

Policy LU-7.1 Accommodate the development of a diversity of residential housing types that meet the needs of
Corona’s population in accordance with the Land Use
Plan’s designations, applicable density standards and
design and development policies, and the adopted housing element.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed TTM 3654R1 would
subdivide the 249.39-acre property to provide for 144
residential lots on 45.75 acres to accommodate up to 276 dwelling units, and would include a diversity of housing types including 93 single-family detached housing units on minimum 7,200 s.f. lots, three custom single-family lots, 104 eight-cluster single-family detached housing units, and

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
77 four-cluster single-family detached housing units. The Project’s proposed land uses are fully consistent with the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Policy LU-7.2 Promote the development of innovative
forms of housing that increase the diversity and
affordability of units to meet the needs of the population, such as mixed-use that integrate housing with commercial and other uses, live/work structures, loft housing, and other similar housing types.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project, which does not propose any mixture of land uses beyond the Project’s proposed residential, park, and open space land uses.

Policy LU-7.3 Allow for the development of accessory
dwelling units and other similar uses in appropriate
residential zones, provided that parking, design, building and safety, and other neighborhood regulations comply
with State statutory requirements and local regulations.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-7.4 Allow for the integration of land uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are
complementary to their primary function as living
environments, including but not limited to: schools, parks, trails, community centers, community meeting facilities, and other comparable uses that provide supporting
services.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-7.5 Allow for home occupations in Corona’s
residential neighborhoods that do not diminish the quality and character of the neighborhood and update the city’s home occupation ordinance in accordance with state
adopted legislation for certain home-based businesses.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-7.6 Allow for the development of family day care facilities, appropriately sized childcare centers, and small residential care facilities (as defined by the State of California) subject to compliance with regulations in state law and the municipal code.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-7.7 Require that single-family detached and
attached housing be well designed in a manner that will enhance and maintain a high level of neighborhood quality in consideration of the following principles:
• Avoidance of “box-like” structures through the
articulation and modulation of building elevations and
masses.
• Variation of rooflines and architectural design
treatment of all elevations that are visible from public places.
• Use of entries and windows on street-facing elevations to visually “open” the house to the neighborhood.
• Minimize the use of paving for driveways and parking
areas in front yard setbacks.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed residential units would be developed in accordance with the development
standards and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP,
which has been designed to promote neighborhood quality and incorporates the principles referenced by this policy.

Policy LU-7.8 Require that new multi-family residential Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.8 relates to multi-family

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
projects be designed to convey a high level of visual and physical quality and distinctive neighborhood character in consideration of the following principles:
• Architectural treatment of building elevations and
modulation of mass to convey the character of
separate units, avoiding the sense of a singular
building mass.
• Design of parking areas integral with the architecture of the residential portions of the structure, including its style, materials, colors, and forms.
• Incorporation of usable and functional private open
space for each residential unit
• Incorporation of common open space that creates a
pleasant living environment while providing attractive
locations for recreation.
residential developments, while the Project proposes only single-family residential development.

Policy LU-7.9 Encourage the attractive treatment of front yards and other areas in residential neighborhoods that are visible from the street, including limits on the area that may be paved for parking or other uses.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-7.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy LU-7.10 Require that fencing and walls in residential neighborhoods achieve high aesthetic and safety standards considering the following principles:
• Fencing and walls should not obstruct vehicle sight
lines and create hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Fencing and walls should be compatible with or
complement the architectural design of nearby
structures.
• Fencing and walls shall be regularly maintained,
repaired, and kept in excellent condition
• Fencing and walls should make a positive contribution to the character of the neighborhood.

Consistent. All fencing proposed on site would be subject to compliance with the proposed SHSP’s development
standards and design guidelines, which incorporate these principles. The remaining portions of this policy provide direction to City staff and decision makers and are
unrelated to the proposed Project.

Existing Neighborhoods: Goal LU-8 and Policies LU 8.1
through LU-8.14
Not Applicable. Goal LU-8 and Policies LU 8.1 through LU8.14 relate to existing neighborhoods within the City, while the Project site currently is undeveloped; thus, this goal and these policies are not applicable to the proposed
Project.

Goal LU-9: Development of new residential neighborhoods that complement existing neighborhoods, contain a mix of neighborhood-supportive land uses, exhibit high quality architectural design, and ensure a high level of livability for their residents.

Consistent. The Project accommodates 11.42 acres of
public and private parks, and the Project would be
developed in accordance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, which
includes requirements that would ensure high-quality
architectural design and would provide a high level of
livability for Project residents.

Policy LU-9.1 Accommodate the development of new
residential neighborhoods in areas depicted by the land use plan and growth and development policy plan that
contain a diversity of housing and supporting schools,
Consistent. The Project’s proposed residential land uses are fully consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, and the Project includes a number of amenities including trails and 11.42

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
parks, and other amenities. acres of public and private parks.

Policy LU-9.2 Promote the development of master planned communities that integrate a diversity of housing, parks, schools, trails, open spaces, and other elements into a distinct place. Require a development pattern that ties together parcels into a cohesive whole addressing the
location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, pedestrian trails, key landmarks, and similar elements.

Consistent. The Project incorporates a mixture of
residential, park, and open space land uses, and all future development on site would be subject to compliance with the development standards and design guidelines of the
proposed SHSP, which includes standards and design
guidelines addressing the location and massing of
buildings, architecture, landscape, pedestrian trails, key landmarks, and similar elements
Policy LU-9.3 Encourage the integration of a mix of housing types into new residential neighborhoods, which may
include single-family homes, townhomes, row houses, livework, and multi-family units to the extent the integration is appropriate and complements surrounding land uses.

Consistent. The Project includes a diversity of housing types including 93 single-family detached housing units on minimum 7,200 s.f. lots, three custom single-family lots, 104 eight-cluster single-family detached housing units, and 77 four-cluster single-family detached housing units.

Policy LU-9.4 Design the distribution of residential land uses to avoid the overconcentration of multi-family units by limiting their number in any single location and
providing for their dispersal throughout the
neighborhoods.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-9.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Additionally, the Project is fully consistent with the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation, and the General Plan Land Use Plan was designed to implement this policy.

Policy LU-9.5 Establish and locate a focal point of identity and activity within walking distance of all housing in new residential neighborhoods that may consist of a school, community meeting facilities, parks, nonresidential areas with public facilities, and similar uses.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to include a
number of amenities including trails and 11.42 acres of public and private parks.

Policy LU-9.6 Support the development of public uses that offer the opportunity for the sharing of facilities such as the integration of school play fields and athletic fields with public parks, public and school libraries, and multi-purpose facilities.

Not Applicable. Policy LU-9.6 relates to public uses, and no public uses are proposed as part of the Project that could be collocated with the Project’s proposed public and
private parks.

Policy LU-9.7 Site and design new residential developments to enhance neighborhood quality by:
• Establishing a network of streets and pedestrian paths that promote neighborhood activity, internal access,
and connectivity to surrounding areas.
• Enhancing the visual quality and character of street
frontages through extensive landscape and reduction
of the visual dominance of garages.
• Promoting architectural diversity for residential,
commercial, and other supporting uses consistent
with established design guidelines.
• Varying heights and rooflines of new development
(residential, commercial, etc.) along the street
frontages to allow for visual interest.

Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, which
incorporates requirements for siting and design that would enhance the proposed residential community, in
conformance with this policy.

Policy LU-9.8 Require that multi-family development
abutting single-family housing units incorporate setbacks, Not Applicable. Policy LU-9.8 relates to the collocation of single family uses with multi-family uses, while no multiPage 1864 of 3613

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
step down in height and mass as it approaches lower
density areas, and incorporate other design elements to ensure an appropriate transition between the uses.
family uses are proposed as part of the Project.

Policy LU-9.9 Require that residential neighborhoods be designed to ensure visual and physical compatibility among their various uses, as well as adjoining neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, and open spaces.

Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, which
incorporates requirements to ensure visual and physical compatibility among all proposed land uses on site.

Policy LU-9.10 Require that new residential development pay its fair share of the cost of capital improvements, public facilities, and services needed to serve that
development. Ensure that funding mechanisms for
landscape maintenance and improvement are required for
each.

Consistent. The Project would be subject to payment of all applicable fees, such as the City’s DIF fee and TUMF fee, and the Project would be required to contribute a fair
share towards transportation improvements not currently identified under existing funding programs.

Goal LU-10 and Policies LU-10.1 through LU-10.8 Not Applicable. Goal LU-10 and Policies LU-10.1 through LU-10.8 relate to development of low-density residential neighborhoods on the City’s southern periphery, while the Project site is located in the western portion of the City.

Commercial and Office Districts: Goal LU-11 and Policies LU-11.1 through LU-11.14.

Not Applicable. Goal LU-11 and Policies LU-11.1 through LU-11.14 relate to commercial and office developments,
and the Project does not include any such uses.

Industrial Districts: Goal LU-12 and Policies LU-12.1
through LU-12.9.

Not Applicable. Goal LU-12 and Policies LU-12.1 through

12.9 relate to industrial developments, and the Project does not include any such uses.

Mixed Use Districts: Goals LU-13 and LU-14 and Policies LU

13.1 through LU-14.4.

Not Applicable. Goals LU-13 and LU-14 and Policies LU

13.1 through LU-14.4 relate to mixed use developments,
and the Project includes only residential, recreational, and open space land uses, and as such does not comprise a
proposed mixed-use community..

Public and Institutional Uses: Goal LU-15 and Policies LU16.1 through LU-15.7.Not Applicable. Goal LU-15 and Policies LU-16.1 through LU-15.7 relate to public and institutional uses , and the Project does not include any such uses.

Goal LU-16: Open spaces that provide Corona’s residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment,
provide visual “relief” from urban development, protect significant plant and animal habitats, and protect
development from natural environmental hazards.

Consistent. The proposed Project would increase open
space (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes,
drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55
acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under
the proposed Project, which represents an increase of

22.0% compared to the Approved Project. The Project also has been designed to preserve sensitive habitats on site to the maximum feasible extent.

Policy LU-16.1 Accommodate open spaces that can be used for recreation and conserved to protect significant plant and animal habitats and population from the risks of flood, fire, and seismic hazards in accordance with the
designations of the land use plan.

Consistent: The proposed Project accommodates 182.48
acres of open space (i.e., natural open space,
manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks), and the Project would improve trailheads for
existing natural trails that exist within the Project’s proposed open space areas, which would be maintained as