SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
publicly-accessible trails under the proposed Project.
Policy LU-16.2 Require the dedication of additional open spaces in new residential subdivisions and other applicable development, where necessary, to preserve the natural
topography, plant and animal habitats, and flooding and drainage corridors in accordance with subsequent policies of this 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’s open space areas encompass the portions of the Project site with substantial natural
topography and the portions of the site with the most
sensitive biological habitat.
Policy LU-16.3 Protect viewsheds by prohibiting the
placement of electrical transmission lines, substations, and other types of overhead or at grade heavy infrastructure into public open space or other sensitive areas.
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any
electrical transmission lines, substations, and other types of overhead or at grade heavy infrastructure.
Policy LU-16.4 Design improvements constructed in public open spaces to reflect their natural environmental setting in form, materials, and colors and to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
Consistent. Improvements proposed within the Project’s
planned open space areas would be limited to the
installation of trailhead signage and restoration on site for temporarily impacted habitats. The Project also has been designed to ensure compatibility between proposed
residential and open space uses, and the Project would be subject to the SHP EIR mitigation measures related to
biological resources (as modified/supplemented herein).
Policy LU-16.5 Require that improvements required to be placed in open space areas (e.g., reservoirs, lighting, and other infrastructure) be designed to minimize the impact on the landscape, avoid obstructing viewsheds, and be
shielded to the extent feasible by landscaping, trees, and other natural forms.
Consistent. Improvements within the Project’s open space areas would be limited to restoration of some temporarily disturbed areas, and the construction of trailheads/signage at the entrance to the existing open space trails on site.
No reservoirs, lighting, or other infrastructure is proposed within the Project’s open space areas, with exception of the Project’s detention basins.
Policy LU-16.6 As a requirement for new development,
ensure the financing, planning, design, and construction of parkland as required by the Quimby Ordinance,
community needs, and consistent with the parks,
recreation, and education element.
Consistent. According to data available from the United States Census Bureau, the City of Corona has an average of approximately 3.28 residents per household (USCB, 2024).
Thus, the proposed Project evaluated herein would
generate a future population of approximately 905
residents (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons).
In order to meet the parkland standard established by
General Plan Policy PR-1.1 of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the Project would require a
minimum of 2.72 acres of parkland (905.28 persons x 3.0 acres/1,000 persons = 2.716 acres). The proposed Project would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland.
Policy LU-16.7 Work with Corona Fire, CAL FIRE and Forest Service and with property owners in affected areas to
reduce and minimize the hazards associated with wildfire in the hillsides and open spaces, consistent with the goals and policies of the safety element.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail herein in
Subsection 2.19, Wildfire, the Project would implement the recommendations of the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (EIR Addendum Technical Appendix K), which would serve to
reduce and minimize the hazards to future residents and
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
structures on site associated with wildfire hazards, and no component of the Project would conflict with the goals and policies contained within the Safety Element.
Opportunity Districts and Sites: Goals LU-17 through LU-21 and Policies LU-17.1 through LU-21.5.
Not Applicable. Goals LU-17 through LU-21 and Policies LU17.1 through LU-21.5 pertain to specific areas of the City of Corona, and the Project site is not located within any of the areas addressed by these goals and policies.
Sphere of Influence: Goal LU-22 and Policies LU 22.1
through LU 22.20.
Not Applicable. Goal LU-22 and Policies LU 22.1 through LU
22.20 pertain to lands within the City of Corona Sphere of Influence, and the Project site is located within the City limits and is not located within the City’s Sphere of
Influence.
Corona Municipal Airport: Goal LU-21 and Policies LU-23.1 through LU-23.8
Not Applicable. Goal LU-21 and Policies LU-23.1 through LU-23.8 pertain to the City of Corona Municipal Airport, and are not applicable to the proposed Project, which is not located within the Airport Influence Area for this
facility.
General Plan Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal H-1: Promote and maintain a balance of housing
types and corresponding affordability levels to provide for the community's demands for housing within all economic segments of the City.
Not Applicable. Policy H-1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the Project accommodates 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 H-1.1 Continue to support public and private sector nonprofit and for-profit organizations in their efforts to construct, acquire, and improve housing to provide access to affordable housing to lower and moderate-income
households.
Not Applicable. Policy H-1.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-1.2 Promote specific plans and zoning map
amendments that provide a variety of housing types and
densities based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of infrastructure, the provision of adequate City services and recognition of environmental constraints.
Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, and the
Project accommodates 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. The Project’s design also avoids the site’s environmental
constraints to the maximum feasible extent.
Policy H-1.3 Provide sites for residential development so that scarcity of land does not unduly increase the cost or decrease the availability of housing for all segments of the community.
Not Applicable. Policy H-1.3 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 H-1.4 Support the development of sustainable
projects that reduce demand for water and energy
resources, reduce commute times and operational costs,
and provide for transit-oriented development.
Not Applicable. Policy H-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-1.5 Create or expand zoning designations and
commensurate development standards to encourage
flexibility in permitted land use types that respond to changing market forces and provide opportunities for
higher density residential development, mixed-use
residential/commercial development, and transit oriented residential development in appropriate areas of the City.
Not Applicable. Policy H-1.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Special Needs Housing: Goal H-2 and Policies H-2.1
through H-2.5
Not Applicable. Goal H-2 and Policies H-2.1 through H-2.5 pertain to special needs housing, and is not applicable to the proposed Project which does not include special needs housing beyond the typical single-family residential units proposed as part of the Project.
Goal H-3: Maintain high quality residential development standards to ensure the establishment of livable
neighborhoods with lasting safety and aesthetic value, and to promote the maintenance and preservation of historic neighborhoods.
Not Applicable. Goal H-3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy H-3.1 Recognize the City's inventory of existing historic structures and seek programs to enhance and
preserve those neighborhoods.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-3.2 Encourage the revitalization of the existing dwelling units in the Circle area through rehabilitation programs.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-3.3 Provide public services and improvements that enhance and create neighborhood stability.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-3.4 Continue to establish and enforce property maintenance regulations that promote the sound
maintenance of property and enhance the livability and
appearance of residential areas.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy H-3.5 Maintain design review for new residential developments to ensure the construction of livable and
aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the City has reviewed the
proposed Project’s design to ensure that the Project
promotes the establishment of livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.
Policy H-3.6 Prioritize water and sewer services and
upgrades in areas of the city that have been identified as urban infill sites for the planning of affordable housing.
Not Applicable. Policy H-3.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Fair Housing: Goal H-4 and Policies H-4.1 and H-4.2 Not Applicable. Goal H-4 and Policies H-4.1 and H-4.2 provide direction to City staff and decision makers and are
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
unrelated to the proposed Project.
General Plan Community Design Element Goals and Policies Goal CD-1: Public street landscapes that unify the City of Corona and contribute to the unique identity of its
neighborhoods, districts, and public places.
Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, including
requirements for street landscapes, which implement the requirements of this policy.
Policy CD-1.1 Require the planting and maintenance of
street trees as part of development applications with
consideration for the following principles:
• Physical constraints of the public street right-of-way, maintenance needs, and safety.
• Importance of shade, beauty, and variety of species
that encourage pedestrian activity.
• Reflects the context of the surrounding residential,
commercial, office, or industrial land uses.
Consistent. Street trees would be planted as part of the Project along all of the Project’s proposed on-site
roadways. Additionally, all landscaping on site would occur in conformance with the design guidelines presented in
the proposed SHSP, which implement these principles.
Policy CD-1.2 Maintain a street tree maintenance and
enhancement program that visually distinguishes
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Areas requiring specific treatment include, but are not limited to,
Downtown along Grand Boulevard, Sixth Street, North
Main Street Corridor, and other key districts.
Not Applicable. Policy CD-1.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy CD-1.3 Maintain a street landscape master plan that identifies species to be used along public streets
throughout the City. A palette of trees and landscaping should be designed to allow for:
• Differentiation within key districts in the City, including Downtown, Sixth Street, North Main, and other
locations.
• Differentiation at the street’s key nodal intersections, entryways, and public places.
• Sustainable landscaping practices including but not
limited to drought-resistant species.
Not Applicable. Policy CD-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CD-1.4 Protect landscaping and mature trees that are symbolic of the City’s agricultural heritage, history, or identity for a district, neighborhood, or street corridor.
Not Applicable. Policy CD-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CD-1.5 Require developers of residential
subdivisions to submit a landscape plan that defines a
program of trees and plantings that uniquely identify
streets, principal entries and intersections, and activity centers such as parks and community facilities.
Consistent. The Project’s application materials include a landscape plan that defines a program of trees and
plantings that uniquely identify streets, principal entries and intersections, and the Project’s proposed public and private parks.
Policy CD-1.6 Seek to expand the citywide and districtspecific district financing mechanisms to fully fund the cost of adding to, maintaining, and improving the City’s public landscaping and street trees.
Not Applicable. Policy CD-1.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
City Entries and Monumentation: Goal CD-2 and Policies Not Applicable. Goal CD-2 and Policies CD-2.1 through CDPage 1869 of 3613
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
CD-2.1 through CD-2.3 2.3 relate to City entries and monumentation at major city entrances and corridors, and are unrelated to the
proposed Project.
Public Signage: Goal CD-3 and Policies CD-3.1 through CD3.5 Not Applicable. Goal CD-3 and Policies CD-3.1 through CD3.5 relate to public signage and wayfinding, while the Project would include appropriate signage in accordance with this goal and these policies.
Goal CD-4: A network of trails and greenways that
interconnect Corona’s parklands, open spaces, and
drainages that provide hiking and bicycle opportunities and access into surrounding open spaces and natural areas.
Consistent. The Project site includes several existing
improved and unimproved trails that traverse portions of the site that are proposed to be retained within the
Project’s proposed natural open space areas on site. This includes the portion of the Skyline Ridge Trail that occurs on site, which would be retained within the on-site open space areas and would be provided with a non-vehicular
connection to Foothill Parkway.
Policy CD-4.1 Develop a plan and implement
improvements that visually and physically interconnect the City’s parklands and link these and residential
neighborhoods with the Cleveland National Forest, and
other open spaces. This may be accomplished by the
installation of a continuous corridor of trees, plantings, informational signage, trails, and/or other defining
elements along streets that connect the parks and open
spaces or new corridors, where feasible.
Consistent. The Project’s proposed open space areas
would be physically interconnected with open space areas within the adjacent Cleveland National Forest (CNF), and the Project would install trailhead directional and safety signs. In addition, the Project would be subject to
compliance with SHP EIR PDF LU-1, which requires the
posting of signage to delineate the boundary between the Project’s open space areas and the CNF in order to
preclude unauthorized access to open space areas within the CNF.
Policy CD-4.2 New development adjoining open spaces,
washes or have the ability to provide pedestrian
connections to off-site trails or pathways should be
designed to ensure landscape transitions and compatibility with these resources. Such improvements should be
designed to provide adequate flood protection for
adjoining properties.
Consistent. The Project’s landscape plan has been
designed to provide a transition between proposed
development areas and on-site open space areas, and the Project would accommodate public trailheads to the
existing natural trails that would be preserved within the on-site open space areas.
Districts, Nodes, and Corridors: Goal CD-5 and Policies CD5.1 through CD-5.11 Not Applicable: Goal CD-5 and Policies CD-5.1 through CD5.11 relate to downtown Corona, North Main Street, and key corridors and activity nodes, while the Project site is not located within the portions of the City affected by this goal and these policies
c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The SHP EIR found that the SHP site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the MSHCP, and determined that the payment of a development mitigation fee is intended to provide full mitigation. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.I-25)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously discussed under the analysis of Threshold f) in Subsection 2.4, Biological Resources, with implementation of the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures related to biological resources (as modified/supplemented by this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR), the proposed Project would be fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the only applicable habitat conservation plan or natural conservation plan to the proposed Project. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, with mitigation the Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and 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.
Mitigation Measures
The following Project Design Feature (PDF) from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to preclude potential impacts to National Forest Service (NFS) lands within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF).
PDF LU-1: The project applicant will survey and post the location of the private property boundary line where it abuts NFS lands within the project area.
2.12 Mineral Resources
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region or the residents of the State?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State?
b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the SHP EIR determined that construction and operation of the SHP would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources (Corona, 2014).
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to mapping information available from the California Geological Survey (CGS), and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project site and surrounding areas are classified within Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) 3, which includes “[a]reas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data” (CGS, 2014). In addition, the City of Corona General Plan does not identify the Project site as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site, and the Project site currently is not subject to any adopted Specific Plans. In addition, no portion of the Project site would be designated for mineral resources production by the proposed SHSP. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State, and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impact would occur. The proposed Project also would develop the same area the SHP EIR assumed would be developed by 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.
2.13 Noise
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
g. 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) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant air quality impacts, a Project-specific technical study was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (herein, “UC”). This report is titled, “Skyline Heights (TTM No. 36544R1), SP00-001 Amendment No. 1, Noise and Vibration Analysis” (herein, “NVA”), is dated December 11, 2023, and is included herein as Technical Appendix I (UC, 2023). a) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels and expose people to temporary, intermittent, and moderate to high-level noise levels. However, as the SHP would comply with the City of Corona’s Noise Ordinance, the SHP EIR found that construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, the SHP EIR imposed mitigation to minimize the potential for construction noise impacts at the nearby noise sensitive residential land uses. The SHP EIR also found that the SHP’s proposed residential uses would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the SHP vicinity above levels existing without the SHP. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that long-term operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.J-14 to 4.J-20)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project evaluated is substantially the same as the project evaluated by the SHP EIR, except that the currently-proposed Project includes 16 fewer residential dwelling units, and 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. Thus, it can be concluded that the Project’s construction- and operational-related noise impacts would be less than what was evaluated and disclosed for the Project site by the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, provided
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
below is an assessment of the proposed Project’s potential to result in substantial temporary or permanent noise increases during construction, including noise associated with construction-related blasting activities, followed by a discussion and analysis of the Project’s potential noise impacts under long-term operations associated with site operations and off-site Project-related traffic.
Existing Noise Measurement Results
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period (refer to Section 5 of the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I, for a description of the methodology used to collect existing noise measurements). The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Figure 10, Noise Measurement Locations, provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. The noise measurements presented below in Table 33, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 33 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.
Appendix 5.2 to the Project’s NVA provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels. (UC, 2023, p. 28)
Sensitive Receptor Locations
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Figure 11, Sensitive Receiver Locations, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. (UC, 2023, p. 47) • Receptor R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 2480 Sierra Bella Drive, approximately 2,035 feet northwest of the Project site. R1 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 1791 Chisholm Trail Circle, approximately 95 feet northeast of the Project site. R2 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 1490 Clearview Circle, approximately 53 feet east of the Project site. R3 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R4: Location R4 represents the mobile homes at 1449 Gareth Circle, approximately 324 feet east of the Project site. R4 is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24- hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Figure 10 Noise Measurement Locations
(UC, 2023, Exhibit 5-A)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Figure 11 Sensitive Receiver Locations
(UC, 2023, Exhibit 9-A)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 33 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 CNEL
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the site near the residence at 2480 Sierra Bella Drive 65.9 60.5 68.8
L2 Located North of the site near the residence at 1791 Chisholm Trail Circle 71.4 69.9 76.7
L3 Located East of the site near the residence at 1490
Clearview Circle 71.6 65.6 74.1
L4 Located East of the site near the residence at 1449
Gareth Circle 55.1 51.9 59.3
L5 Located West of the site near the residence at 2400
Mabey Canyon Road 43.4 42.6 49.3
1 See Figure 10 for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2 to the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I).
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (UC, 2023, Table 5-1)
• Receptor R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 2400 Mabey Cyn Road, approximately 174 feet west of the Project site. R5 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L5, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Significance Criteria
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
As discussed in further detail in Section 4 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I), noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines and the significance of Project-related noise is based on the noise level increases at the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. For purposes of analysis of impacts to noisesensitive receivers, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the existing noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. (UC, 2023, pp. 23-24) Non-Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Table N-1, Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, of the City of Corona General Plan Noise Element was used to establish the satisfactory noise levels of significance for non-noise-sensitive land uses in the Project study area. To determine if Project-related traffic noise level increases are significant at off-site non-noise-sensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA criteria is used. When the without Project noise levels are greater than the
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
clearly compatible 70 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria at non-noise sensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact since the noise level criteria is already exceeded. (UC, 2023, p. 24)
Significance Criteria Summary
As discussed in further detail in Section 4 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I), the Project’s noise impacts would be considered significant if the Project were to exceed any of the significance thresholds identified in Table 34, Significance Criteria Summary.
Table 34 Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic
NoiseSensitive1
if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non-NoiseSensitive2 if ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase On-Site
Traffic Residential3 Exterior Noise Level 65 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level 45 dBA CNEL
Operational
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards4 See Table 3-1
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Non-NoiseSensitive2 If ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Construction NoiseSensitive
Prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays.5 Noise Level Threshold6 80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Airblast Threshold5 129 dBA Lmax n/a
Vibration Level Threshold7 0.05 in/sec RMS 1 FICON, 1992. 2 City of Corona General Plan Noise Element (Table N-1) 3 City of Corona General Plan Noise Element Table N-2, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. 4 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040 Noise[C][2] (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I). 5 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040[D][2] Noise (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA). 6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. 7 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.050 Vibration (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA). "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; "RMS" = root-mean-square (UC, 2023, Table 4-1)
Construction-Related Noise Impacts
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that, when combined, can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, blasting, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The construction noise analysis included in the Project’s NVA was
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
prepared using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program and reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction, as more fully described in Subsections 11.1 through 11.3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described above and depicted on Figure 11. (UC, 2023, pp. 57-60)
Typical Construction Noise Analysis
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess a reasonable worst-case construction scenario and account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the Project construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference level as a moving point within the construction area (Project site boundary). As shown in Table 35, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 32.5 to 57.5 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 42.6 to 57.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Appendix 11.1 to the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. (UC, 2023, p. 60)
Table 35 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 42.6 40.8 38.9 38.5 32.5 42.6
R2 56.3 54.5 52.6 52.2 46.2 56.3
R3 57.5 55.7 53.8 53.4 47.4 57.5
R4 51.7 49.9 48.0 47.6 41.6 51.7
R5 55.1 53.3 51.4 51.0 45.0 55.1 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 11-2)
To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at the nearest noisesensitive receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table 36, Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise would be less than significant at all receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 60)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 36 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 ThresholdExceeded?4
R1 42.6 80 No
R2 56.3 80 No
R3 57.5 80 No
R4 51.7 80 No
R5 55.1 80 No 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations as shown on Table 35. 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment noise level threshold as shown on Table 34. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (UC, 2023, Table 11-3)
Construction-Related Blasting Noise Analysis
Portions of the Project site are underlain by non-rippable bedrock materials that are not conducive to standard grading techniques. In these areas, it is anticipated that blasting would be required during grading in order to break up the existing bedrock. Figure 12, Construction Blasting Locations in Relation to Sensitive Receptors, depicts the portions of the Project site anticipated to require blasting during grading in relation to the sensitive receptor locations previously depicted on Figure 11.
A blasting contractor would be required to complete all blasting-related activities in compliance with applicable regulations of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OHSA), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As required by law, a licensed blasting contractor would be responsible for performing and supervising all blasting activities, including the following: (UC, 2023, p. 62) • Drill pattern design;
• Pre-blast inspection;
• Loading of explosives;
• Pre-blast notifications and warning signaling;
• Blasting safety procedures;
• Blasting site security;
• Post-blast inspections and re-entry procedures; and
• Blast log and history.
• Pattern blasting involves drilling holes in a pre-designed pattern. The depth and spacing of holes are controlled to provide the maximum fracture with the minimum amount of ground shaking. Blasting patterns typically consist of drill holes between two and five inches in diameter. The depth of the drill holes would be determined by the blasting contractor and is specific to each application. Blasting patterns
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Figure 12 Construction Blasting Locations in Relation to Sensitive Receptors (UC, 2023, Exhibit 11-B)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
on construction sites typically range from three feet by three feet to 12 feet by 12 feet. The Blasting Engineer would control blasting-induced vibration and noise. General control measures include: (UC, 2023, p. 64)
• Stemming shall be of uniform size in order to ensure consistency between individual shots; • The weight of explosives used per delay shall be determined by adherence to the Scaled Distance Equation;
• Independent delays shall be used for each blast hole to control vibration; and • Blasting shall not take place when wind velocity equals or exceeds 15 miles per hour. A licensed blasting contractor will determine wind speed through the use of a recording anemometer located a minimum of ten feet above ground level.
In addition, ground vibrations and air overpressure shall be monitored during each blast for compliance with the limits by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Following each blast, seismographs shall be checked to ensure that the blasting has not exceeded relevant standards. The relevant standards are as follows: (UC, 2023, p. 64) • Pursuant to 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Ch. VII, § 816.67(b)(1)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8485, airblasts shall not exceed 133 dB at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area. • Pursuant to 30 CFR Ch. VII, § 816.67(d)(2)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8508, the maximum ground vibration shall not exceed the limits in said section at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area.
To evaluate the potential noise levels from blasting activities during Project construction, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) reference noise level of 94.1 dBA Lmax is used at a reference distance of 50 feet. Each blast represents a point source of noise that attenuates at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. The closest residential homes to the Project construction area are represented by receiver location R2 located approximately 944 feet northeast of the nearest blasting area. With the distance attenuation from the closest blasting activities, the unmitigated noise levels at nearby receiver locations are expected to range from 57.6 to 68.6 dBA Lmax based on the blasting noise levels shown in Table 37, Blasting-Related Construction Noise Levels. However, since the type of blasting techniques planned within the Project site was unknown at the time the Project’s NVA was prepared, the noise levels presented at the nearby sensitive receiver locations represent the worst-case conditions based on the RCNM reference noise level. (UC, 2023, p. 64)
The City of Corona General Plan and Municipal Code do not identify specific construction noise level limits for blasting activities. Therefore, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) and CFR lowest maximum Airblast Limit (30 CFR 816.67[b]) of 129 dBA Lmax at nearby sensitive uses is used. Based on the reference blasting noise level, the closest residential receiver would experience noise levels of 68.6 dBA Lmax over the course of the blast, which likely would occur for only a few seconds. While some blasting noise may be noticeable by nearby residents, the single-event, temporary noise levels generated by the blast will not exceed the OSMRE and the CFR standards for airblasts. Accordingly, Project impacts due to blasting-related noise during grading activities would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, p. 65)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 37 Blasting-Related Construction Noise Levels
Location1
Distance to
Blasting Activity
(Feet)2
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 3,312' 57.7 129 No
R2 944' 68.6 129 No
R3 1,952' 62.3 129 No
R4 3,330' 57.6 129 No
R5 990' 68.2 129 No 1 Blasting construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Figure 12. 2 Based on FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model reference noise level of 94.1 dBA Lmax. (UC, 2023, Table 11-6)
Operational-Related Noise Impacts
On-Site Operational Noise Impacts
Project Operational Noise Levels
The proposed Project is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with residential land uses in the Project study area. However, to present a conservative approach, on-site Project-only operational noise sources are analyzed and are expected to include air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity. (UC, 2023, p. 49)
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project, and are shown on Table 38, Reference Noise Level Measurements. Refer to Subsections 10.2 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a discussion of the methodology used to collect and calculate the reference noise levels. It is important to note that the projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity all operating continuously. These sources of noise activity likely would vary throughout the day. (UC, 2023, p. 49) Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity, UC calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Refer to Subsection 10.3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a description of the noise modeling methodology used to calculate the Project’s operational-related noise levels. Table 39, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. As shown, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 26.0 to 36.8 dBA Leq. Table 40, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. As shown, the nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from
23.4 to 33.9 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity (as shown in Table 38). (UC, 2023, p. 53)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 38 Reference Noise Level Measurements
Noise Source
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour2
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA)3
Day Night
Air Conditioning Units1 5' 45 30 45.4 77.0
Parking Lot Vehicle
Movements2 5' 60 60 31.4 63.0
Lift Station Activity3 5' 60 60 70.0 101.6
Outdoor Gatherings Activity3 5' 60 0 59.9 91.5
Skate Park Activity3 5' 60 0 63.3 94.9
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:0 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 Rheem RP14 Series, see Appendix 10.1 to the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I. 2 Parking Lot Movements are calculated based on the number of events by time of day (See Table 10-2 of the Project’s NVA). 3 As collected/measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 4 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. 5 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources. (UC, 2023, Table 10-1)
Table 39 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Air Conditioning Units 20.6 33.4 26.2 26.9 31.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 0.0 5.5 11.4 14.4 9.4
Lift Station Activity 22.8 32.1 34.3 26.4 30.3
Outdoor Gatherings Activity 19.7 30.1 32.0 33.0 32.6
Skate Park Activity 0.0 19.9 25.5 25.7 23.9
Total (All Noise Sources) 26.0 36.8 36.7 34.7 36.3 1 See Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-3)
Table 40 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Air Conditioning Units 17.9 30.7 23.4 24.1 28.5
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 0.0 4.5 10.4 13.4 8.4
Lift Station Activity 21.9 31.1 33.4 25.5 29.4
Outdoor Gatherings Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skate Park Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 23.4 33.9 33.8 28.0 32.0 1 See Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-4)
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Corona exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 41, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
levels associated with proposed Project would satisfy the City of Corona 55 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts would be less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 54) Table 41 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 26.0 23.4 55 50 No No
R2 36.8 33.9 55 50 No No
R3 36.7 33.8 55 50 No No
R4 34.7 28.0 55 50 No No
R5 36.3 32.0 55 50 No No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 39 and Table 40. 3 Exterior noise level standards for source (residential) land use, as shown on Table 4-1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. (UC, 2023, Table 10-5)
Project Operational Noise Level Increases
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources using the methodology described in Subsection 10.6 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 42, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, and Table 43, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, the Project would generate operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.8 dBA at the nearest receiver locations. Projectrelated operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 34. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase would be than significant at all receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 55) Off-Site Traffic-Related Noise Impacts
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Project’s Traffic Analysis (“TA”; Technical Appendix J). Noise contour boundaries represent equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Refer to Subsection 7.1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a discussion of the noise contours that were utilized for estimating Project traffic-related under Existing (2023) and Opening Year Cumulative (2028) conditions. (UC, 2023, pp. 35-37)
Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Project’s TA (Technical Appendix J). This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and would not occur, since the Project will not be fully
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 42 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 26.0 L1 65.9 65.9 0.0 1.5 No
R2 36.8 L2 71.4 71.4 0.0 1.5 No
R3 36.7 L3 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No
R4 34.7 L4 55.1 55.1 0.0 5.0 No
R5 36.3 L5 43.4 44.2 0.8 5.0 No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 39. 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 10. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 33. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 34.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-6)
Table 43 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 23.4 L1 60.5 60.5 0.0 3.0 No
R2 33.9 L2 69.9 69.9 0.0 1.5 No
R3 33.8 L3 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.5 No
R4 28.0 L4 51.9 51.9 0.0 5.0 No
R5 32.0 L5 42.6 43.0 0.4 5.0 No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 40 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 11. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 33. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 34.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-7)
developed and occupied under Existing (2023) conditions. Table 7-1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 69.4 to 71.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 of the Project’s NVA shows the Existing with Project conditions would range from 69.6 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. Table 44, Existing with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts would range from 0.2 to 0.4 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for offsite traffic noise presented in Table 34, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less-than-significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic. (UC, 2023, p. 37) Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Level Increases
An analysis of opening year traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Skyline Heights (TTM No. 36544R1) Traffic Analysis. Table 7-3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) shows the Opening Yer without
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 44 Existing with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Green River Rd. w/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.1 70.4 0.3 1.5 No 2 Green River Rd. e/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.3 70.6 0.3 1.5 No 3 Green River Rd. e/o Montana Ranch Rd. Residential 70.2 70.5 0.3 1.5 No 4 Green River Rd. e/o Sierra Bella Dr./
Tanglewood Dr. Residential 71.0 71.3 0.3 1.5 No
5 Green River Rd. e/o Paseo Grande Residential 70.4 70.8 0.4 1.5 No 6 Foothill Pkwy. e/o R Street Residential 70.4 70.7 0.3 1.5 No 7 Foothill Pkwy. e/o B St./Border Ave. Residential 70.4 70.6 0.2 1.5 No 8 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Chase Dr. Residential 70.2 70.4 0.2 1.5 No 9 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Trudy Wy. Residential 70.4 70.6 0.2 1.5 No 10 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Lincoln Ave. Residential 69.4 69.6 0.2 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise-sensitive uses are limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 34)? (UC, 2023, Table 7-5)
Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 69.9 to 71.7 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 of the Project’s NVA shows the Opening Year with Project conditions would range from 70.9 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. Table 45, Opening Year with Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts would range from 0.1 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 34, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic. (UC, 2023, pp. 37-38) Table 45 Opening Year with Project Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Green River Rd. w/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.8 71.0 0.2 1.5 No 2 Green River Rd. e/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 71.0 71.2 0.2 1.5 No 3 Green River Rd. e/o Montana Ranch Rd. Residential 70.9 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 4 Green River Rd. e/o Sierra Bella
Dr./Tanglewood Dr. Residential 71.7 72.0 0.2 1.5 No
5 Green River Rd. e/o Paseo Grande Residential 71.0 71.3 0.3 1.5 No 6 Foothill Pkwy. e/o R Street Residential 71.0 71.2 0.2 1.5 No 7 Foothill Pkwy. e/o B St./Border Ave. Residential 71.0 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 8 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Chase Dr. Residential 70.7 70.9 0.2 1.5 No 9 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Trudy Wy. Residential 70.9 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 10 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Lincoln Ave. Residential 69.9 70.1 0.1 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise-sensitive uses are limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 34)? (UC, 2023, Table 7-6)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Conclusion
As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the Project’s near-term construction activities, including blasting activities, and long-term operational and traffic-related impacts, would be less than significant based on the significance criteria presented in Table 34. Accordingly, the proposed Project: (1) would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (2) would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project; and (3) would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop a smaller footprint, with fewer residential units than the Approved Project, meaning that all impacts are generally reduced compared to what was analyzed in the SHP EIR. 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 the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p.
4.J-21)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during both construction and long-term operations. Each is discussed below.
Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Typical Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 46, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA, which is described in Subsection 11.6 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). (UC, 2023, p. 61)
Table 47, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, presents the expected typical construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 53 feet to 2,035 feet from typical Project construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to range from less than 0.01 to 0.03 PPV (in/sec) at the nearest receiver locations. The Project construction would not generate vibration levels exceeding the City of Corona maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.20 PPV (in/sec)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 46 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. (UC, 2023, Table 11-4)
Table 47 Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver
Location1 Land Use
Distance to
Property
Line
(In Feet)
Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2
Threshold
(PPV
in/sec)
Potential
Significant
Impact?4
Small
Bulldozer
Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Peak
Vibration
R1 Residential 2,035' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No
R2 Residential 95' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 No
R3 Residential 53' 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.20 No
R4 Residential 324' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No
R5 Residential 174' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 11-4. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2020.
4 Does the Peak Vibration exceed the City of Corona maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.05 in/sec? (UC, 2023, Table 11-5)
(0.05 RMS in/sec). Further, impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating proximate to the Project site perimeter. Moreover, construction at the Project site would be restricted to daytime hours consistent with CMC requirements, thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours. On this basis the potential for the Project to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration during typical construction activities would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, pp. 61-62)
Blasting-Related Construction Vibration Impacts
Blasting operations can have unacceptable noise and vibration impacts if not conducted correctly. Excessive levels of structural vibration due to ground vibration from blasting can cause substantial damage to structures. A blasting contractor would be required to complete all blasting-related activities in compliance with applicable regulations of the City of Corona, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which have many requirements for the safe handling, use, and storage of explosives and recommend various measures and controls, including, but not limited to monitoring and reporting of each blast to verify no damage has occurred at nearby structures, notifications to surrounding neighbors, limitations on the amounts and times blast may occur. Compliance with the applicable blasting-related regulations would ensure that Project blasting activities do not generate vibration levels exceeding the identified threshold of significance of 0.05 inches per
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
second (in/sec) Route Mean Squared (RMS) previously shown in Table 34. However, and although unlikely because compliance with applicable regulations is mandatory, in the event that the Project were to fail to comply with the applicable regulations, the detonation of up to 140 pounds of explosives in a single blast could have the potential exceed the City of Corona vibration threshold at distances up to 900 feet from the blast. Therefore, without vibration controls and measures, as required by applicable blasting-related regulations, blasting could exceed thresholds at the areas near existing residential homes surrounding the Project site, as shown on Figure 12.
Although blasting-related vibration impacts would be less than significant with mandatory compliance with applicable blasting-related regulations, new Mitigation Measure NS-9 has been identified as part of this EIR Addendum in order to ensure Project compliance with the applicable blasting-related regulations during site blasting activities. With mandatory compliance with applicable blasting-related regulations, as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, vibration levels from Project-related blasting activities at sensitive receivers would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, p. 65)
Operational-Related Vibration Impacts
Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. The Project’s only potential to result in operational-related vibration impacts would be due to Projectrelated traffic traveling along local area roadways. Caltrans has issued a publication entitled, “Transportation Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” dated April 2020 (Caltrans, 2020). As noted by Caltrans:
“Because vehicles traveling on highway are supported on flexible suspension systems and pneumatic tires, these vehicles are not an efficient source of ground vibration. They can, however, impart vibration into the ground when they roll over pavement that is not smooth. Continuous traffic traveling on a smooth highway creates a fairly continuous but relatively low level of vibration. Where discontinuities exist in the pavement, heavy truck passages can be the primary source of localized, intermittent vibration peaks. These peaks typically last no more than a few seconds and often for only a fraction of a second. Because vibration drops off rapidly with distance, there is rarely a cumulative increase in ground vibration from the presence of multiple trucks.” (Caltrans, 2020, p. 10)
All traffic generated by the Project would travel along City, County, or Caltrans facilities that are regularly maintained to prevent discontinuous pavement (e.g., potholes). As such, and based on guidance from Caltrans, the Project’s operational traffic-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
With mandatory compliance with appliable blasting-related regulations, as would be required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during either construction or long-term operation, and as such Project vibration-related 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.
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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels from airport-related noise.
The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.J-21) 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 . According to Map CO-3 of the Riverside County ALUC Compatibility Plan for the Corona Municipal Airport, the 55 dBA CNEL contour for the Corona Municipal Airport does not extend south of Railroad Street and the nearest lands located within the 55 dBA CNEL contour occur approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, it can be concluded that future Project residents would not be exposed to airport-related noise levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL. (Google Earth, 2024; Riverside County ALUC, 1993, Map CO-3) According to Table N-1, Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, of the City of Corona General Plan Noise Element, residential and recreational uses such proposed as part of the Project are considered “Clearly Compatible” with noise levels below 55 dBA CNEL (Corona, 2020, Table N-1). There are no other public or private airport facilities within the Project area capable of exposing future Project residents to airport-noise levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve any airport-related components, and thus would have no potential to result in an increase in airport-related noise in the local area.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with public or private airports, and impacts would be less than significant. 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. f) Would the Project 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) 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 implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels from airport-related noise.
The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.J-21) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017.
However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 48, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Noise, provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the noise-related goals and policies from the 2020 General Plan, which are included in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. As indicated in Table 48, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to noise. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. 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.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 48 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Noise Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal N-1: Protect residents, visitors, and noise-sensitive land uses from the adverse human health and
environmental impacts created by excessive noise levels from transportation sources by requiring proactive
mitigation.
Consistent. As demonstrated by the analysis presented
herein, and with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures and new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Project
impacts due to construction- and operational-related noise would be less than significant, in conformance with this policy.
Policy N-1.1: Reduce noise impacts from transportation
noise sources through the design and daily operation of arterial road improvements, enforcement of state motor
vehicle noise standards, and other measures consistent
with funding capabilities.
• Require site design features and structural building
enhancements in the development of residential and
other “noise sensitive” land uses that are to be located adjacent to major roads or railroads.
• Encourage enforcement of state motor vehicle noise
standards through coordination with the California
Highway Patrol and the Corona Police Department.
• Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance, Circulation
Element, and Land Use Element of the General Plan
fully integrate the policies adopted as part of the
Noise Element.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein under the
discussion of Thresholds a), c), and d), above,
demonstrates that the Project’s traffic-related noise
increases would be less than significant under all study scenarios and along all study area roadways. Additionally, the Project’s NVA demonstrates that future residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards with standard building construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors with minimum
Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings of 27.
Policy N-1.2: Minimize the rise of vehicle noise from
roadways through route location, sensitive roadway
design, regulation of traffic volumes and speeds, and
working with Caltrans in highway improvements.
Consistent. Although this policy primarily provides
direction to City staff and decision makers regarding
vehicle noise management, the analysis presented herein under the discussion of Thresholds a), c), and d), above, demonstrates that the Project’s traffic-related noise
increases would be less than significant under all study scenarios and along all study area roadways.
Policy N-1.3: Encourage Caltrans to install and maintain mitigation (e.g., noise walls) and/or landscaping elements along highways that are adjacent to existing residential subdivisions or other noise-sensitive areas in order to reduce adverse noise impacts.
Not Applicable. Policy N-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding coordination with Caltrans with respect to vehicular noise along Caltrans routes, and is not applicable to the proposed Project, which would not affect any transportation facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
Policy N-1.4: Require municipal vehicles and noisegenerating mechanical equipment purchased or used by the City to comply with noise performance standards
consistent with the latest available noise reduction
technology to the extent practicable and cost-effective.
Not Applicable. Policy N-1.4 relates to noise from Cityowned municipal vehicles, and is not applicable to the proposed Project.
Policy N-1.5: Require new nonresidential development that attracts noise-generating vehicles (e.g., high volumes of traffic, trucking) to design and configure onsite ingress and egress points to divert traffic away from “noise sensitive” Not Applicable. Policy N-1.5 relates to nonresidential
development that attracts noise-generating vehicles, while the Project consists of a proposed residential
development. Thus, this policy is not applicable to the
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
land uses, to the greatest extent practicable. proposed Project.
Goal N-2: Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of
excessive ambient noise exposure, including vibration on residents, employees, visitors, and “noise sensitive” land uses.
Consistent. The analysis of Threshold d), above,
demonstrates that with implementation of the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR, and with mandatory
regulatory compliance with applicable blasting regulations as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Projectrelated construction and long-term operational vibration impacts would be less than significant at all nearby
sensitive receptor locations.
Policy N-2.1 Consider noise and vibration levels in land use planning decisions to prevent future noise and vibration and land use incompatibilities. Considerations may include, but not necessarily be limited to, standards that specify acceptable noise limits for various land uses, noise
reduction features, acoustical design in new construction, and enforcement of the California Standards Building Code provisions for indoor and outdoor noise levels.
Not Applicable. Policy N-2.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to establish of noise thresholds of significance and to implement noise mitigation where
appropriate. Notwithstanding, as demonstrated by the
analysis herein, with mandatory compliance with the SHP EIR mitigation measures and with mandatory regulatory
compliance with applicable blasting regulations as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Project-related
construction and long-term operational noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Policy N-2.2 Require that in areas where existing or future ambient noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, all development of new housing, health care
facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other “noise sensitive” uses shall include site design, building enhancements, buffering, and/or mitigation to reduce
noise exposure to within acceptable limits.
Consistent. The Project’s NVA demonstrates that future
residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards with standard building
construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. Thus, future Project
residences would not be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.
Policy N-2.3 Require new industrial and new commercial
land uses or the major expansion of such uses to
demonstrate that ambient noise levels will not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL on areas containing “noise sensitive” land uses as depicted in Table N-1, N-2, and N-3.
Not Applicable. Policy N-2.3 relates to new industrial and commercial land uses, and the Project does not include
any proposed industrial or commercial land uses.
Policy N-2.4 Require development in all areas where the existing or future ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction to reduce interior noise levels to the 45 dBA CNEL level as depicted on Table N-1, N-2, and N-3.
Consistent. A Project-specific technical study (NVA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix I. The Project’s NVA demonstrates that future
residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA
CNEL with standard building construction that includes
windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27.
Policy N-2.5 Encourage existing “noise sensitive uses,” including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses, in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL to incorporate fences, walls, landscaping, and/or other noise buffers and barriers,
where appropriate and feasible.
Not Applicable. Policy N-2.5 relates to “existing” noisesensitive uses, and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Regardless, as noted above, the Project’s NVA
demonstrates that future residences on site would meet
the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL with standard building
construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
with minimum STC ratings of 27.
Policy N-2.6 Require development that generates increased traffic and substantial increases in ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide
appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
acceptable limits of the City Noise Ordinance.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein under the
discussion of Thresholds a), c), and d), above,
demonstrates that the Project’s traffic-related noise
increases would be less than significant under all study scenarios and along all study area roadways. Additionally, the Project’s NVA demonstrates that future residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards with standard building construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors with minimum
STC ratings of 27.
Policy N-2.7 Require construction activities that occur in close proximity to existing “noise sensitive” uses, including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses, to limit the hours and days of operation in
accordance with the City Noise Ordinance.
Consistent. The Project includes proposed noise-sensitive land uses, and the residential and recreational uses
proposed as part of the Project would not include any
operational characteristics that would have the potential to result in on- or off-site noise impacts during nighttime hours.
Goal N-3 and Policies N-3.1 through N-3.6 Not Applicable. Goal N-3 and Policies N-3.1 through N-3.6 relate to the encroachment and spillover of unacceptable noise levels from mixed use, commercial, and industrial uses, and the Project does not propose any mixed use,
commercial, or industrial uses.
Goal N-4 and Policies N-4.1 through N-4.5 Not Applicable. Goal N-4 and Policies N-4.1 through N-4.5 relate to noise impacts from railroad transit, airport
operations, and flight patterns, and are not applicable to the proposed Project, which does not include any railroador airport-related components.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to noise to below a level of significance. Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format, and have been made to reflect the results of the Project’s NVA. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measures reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.
NS-1 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and Federal holidays.
NS-2 Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses.
NS-3 Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
NS-4 The use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall be minimized (i.e., use of drills, jackhammers).
NS-5 The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.
NS-6 Barriers such as, but not limited to, plywood structures of flexible sound control curtains shall be erected between the proposed project and the adjacent existing residences to the northeast and west, to minimize the amount of noise to the maximum extent feasible during construction.
NS-7 All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Public Works Department, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.
NS-8 Adjacent land uses within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified about the estimated duration and hours of construction activities at least 30 days before the start of construction.
NS-9 Prior to approval of any grading permits that require blasting activities and a blasting permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit for City review and approval of a Blasting Noise and Vibration Monitoring and Abatement Plan (“Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan”). At a minimum, the required Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall include the following:
Specified blasting hours, restricting blasting only to Monday through Friday and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Conceptual blast designs. Conceptual blast designs shall be based on “scaled distance” criteria (i.e., defined as the distance in feet between a blast drill hole and the structure of concern, divided by the square root of the explosives loading per delay period in pounds-units in feet per pound1/2). The scaled distance chosen for the initial design should be supported by statistical analysis indicating the resulting ground vibration will be less than the criteria set for the Project. The scaled distance used for production blasts may be modified based on the results of the test blast(s) but should be conservative enough to produce vibration and airblast levels within the project specifications. It should be noted that the conceptual blast designs are general and will need to be modified during the project based on actual conditions encountered in the field and the results of site-specific blasting. Test Blasts. One or more test blasts shall be performed in an area outside of critical distance of residential structures or other improvements of concern; the critical distance shall based on the scaled distance calculations with a 10 percent distance increase. Controlled Blasting Techniques. Include techniques and procedures to control and monitor flyrock, airblast, and ground vibration:
o Flyrock mitigation measures may include: soil cover, leaving alluvial materials in place over materials to be blasted, and/or blast mats.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
o Crushed rock (i.e., 3/8”) should be used for stemming materials o Drill cuttings are not acceptable.
o All stemming materials should be tamped in-place.
The Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall include procedures for the submittal of blast reports and record keeping.
The Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall outline safety measures and procedures to notify property owners that blasting will occur. If specified vibration limits are exceeded, the Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall require blasting operations to cease immediately, and a revised blasting plan shall be submitted to the City of Corona. Blasting shall not resume until a revised blasting plan has been reviewed and the Contractor has expressed in writing the conditions that will be applied to further blasting work.
Pre-Blast Survey Requirements. The following measures shall be specified in the Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan:
o Prior to the commencement of any blasting, a pre-blast survey of the conditions of all existing property and aboveground utilities located within 500 feet of any potential blasting areas shall be conducted or as specified by the City of Corona, whichever is a lesser distance.
o Prior to the commencement of any blasting, notification of neighbors withing 1500 feet of the blasting area shall be made via first class mail or hand delivery of written notice. o The pre-blast survey shall be conducted by a third-party company with a minimum of five years of experience performing pre-blast and similar type surveys. o The pre-blast survey shall include a photographic record of all visible and accessible structures, facilities, utilities, or other improvements. If property owners refuse surveys, provide copies of certified mail letters documenting attempts to provide the survey. o The required surveys shall include a description of the interior and exterior condition of the various structures examined. Descriptions shall include the locations of any cracks, damage, or other existing defects and shall include information needed to identify and describe the defect, if any, and to evaluate the construction operations on the defect.
Survey records shall include photos of all cracks and other damaged, weathered, or otherwise deteriorated structural conditions. If necessary, macro lenses and flash illumination shall be used to ensure defects are shown clearly in the photographs. Photos shall contain an accurate date stamp. No blasting shall occur prior to the completion of surveys of surrounding residential properties.
o Surveys shall be repeated at facilities or properties where damage concerns have been expressed by individual residents, property owners, or other concerned parties. Details of any observed changes to surveyed structures and documenting photos shall be reported and submitted.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Project grading and blasting contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan requirements and shall permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Corona staff or its designee to confirm compliance. The requirements of the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. The City of Corona shall review all monitoring reports to ensure compliance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan and shall have the authority to stop all blasting activities on site if it is determined that blasting activities are not being conducted in conformance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan. .
Additionally, project grading and blasting contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the Corona Fire Department publication, “Explosives, Blasting and Pyrotechnics Permit Guidelines per 2022 CFC,” dated December 5, 2023, and included as Technical Appendix L of Addendum No. 1 to the Skyline Heights Project Environmental Impact Report.
2.14 Population and Housing
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. 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) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not induce substantial population, housing, or employment growth in the area beyond that anticipated
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
by SCAG projections. As such, impacts due to substantial population growth were disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.K-6 to 4.K-9)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would entail development of the 249.39-acre Project site with 276 dwelling units, which represents 16 fewer units than the 292 dwelling units evaluated for the Project site as part of the SHP EIR. Additionally, under existing conditions the 249.39-acre Project site is designated by the City of Corona General Plan for “Low Density Residential” land uses, which allows for residential development at densities between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Thus, based on the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation, the General Plan would allow for development of the Project site with up to 1,496 dwelling units (249.39 ac x 6 du/ac = 1,496.34 du). As such, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the construction of 276 single-family dwelling units on the Project site would not represent unplanned growth within this portion of the City of Corona. The Project would not include any major improvements to circulation facilities, and the Project’s water, sewer, and drainage improvements have been sized to serve only the proposed Project. There are no components of the Project that would result in a substantial inducement to population growth beyond the growth that was anticipated as part of the Approved Project.
Accordingly, Project impacts due to population growth 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 displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR determined that implementation of the SHP would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. These impacts were disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.K-6 to 4.K-9)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conditions that existed at the time the SHP EIR was certified, the Project site does not contain any existing housing or residents under existing conditions. As such, the proposed Project has no potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 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. d) Would the Project 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) 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 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). This impact was disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-9)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project involves the construction of 276 single-family residential units, which is 16 fewer units than the approved 292 units analyzed in the SHP EIR. The proposed Project would continue to be consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and regulations set forth by the City of Corona, including the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, and other relevant planning documents. The reduction in the number of units does not change the project’s alignment with the City’s General Plan or its Housing Element. The revised Project still supports the City’s goals for housing development by contributing to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and addressing local housing needs, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Notwithstanding, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 32, previously presented under the discussion and analysis of Project impacts to Land Use and Planning in Subsection 2.11, provides a discussion and analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable policies related to Land Use and Planning, and includes a discussion and analysis of the Project’s consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element. As demonstrated in Table 32, the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies related to housing. In addition, Table 31, also presented in Subsection 2.11, demonstrates that the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with applicable regional planning policies from the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS (also known as Connect SoCal). Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. 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.
2.15 Public Services and Recreation
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
1) Fire Protection?
2) Police Protection?
3) Parks?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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
4) Schools?
5) Other Public Facilities?
b. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Conflict w 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 and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a.1) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency medical services.
However, the SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-12 to 4.L-14) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project evaluated by the SHP EIR included up to 292 single-family dwelling units, while the currently-proposed TTM 36544R1 includes only 276 dwelling units. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a slightly reduced demand for fire protection services as compared to the Approved Project evaluated by the SHP EIR.
As noted by the SHP EIR, primary fire protection services for the proposed Project would be provided by Corona Fire Department (CFD) Station No. 6, located at 110 West Upper Street in the City of Corona, or approximately 2.7
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
roadway miles southeast of the Project site (Google Earth, 2024). Other fire stations available to serve the Project include CFD Fire Stations 3 and/or 5, and these facilities would be available to provide a secondary response to the site, if needed. CFD Station 6 is staffed 24/7 by a four-person Engine Company consisting of a Captain, an engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics, and is equipped with a Type 1 Engine and Water Tender Truck. CFD Station 3 is the next closest station and is located at 790 S. Smith Ave, Corona, California. Station 3 also is staffed 24/7 by a fourperson Engine Company with a Captain, an Engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics, as well as a two-person Paramedic Squad Truck with two firefighter-paramedics. CFD Station 5, located at 1200 Canyon Crest Dr, Corona, California is located similar distance to the project site as Station 3. Station 5 also is staffed 24/7 by a four-person Engine Company with a Captain, an Engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics. (Dudek, 2025, p. 47) Call to arrival measures time from receipt of the request for assistance until the emergency apparatus arrives on the scene of a call. The CFD current goals are 1:00 minute for call processing, 1:50 minutes for turnout, and 4:00 minutes for travel time, which adds up to 6:50 minutes total response time. In 2019, the CFD retained Citygate Associates, LLC to conduct a comprehensive update of its 2013 Standard of Coverage (SOC) and headquarters services assessment to provide an ongoing foundation for fire service planning. The Citygate Standard of Coverage Assessment recommended a call to arrive (total response time) for the CFD to be 90% of compliance at 7:30 minutes, which is a best practice goal for urban areas and would include 1:30 minutes for call processing plus 2:00 minutes turnout time plus 4:00 minutes travel time. In an effort to understand fire department response capabilities, an analysis of the travel-time response coverage from the closest responding CFD Fire Stations (Fire Station 6 being the closest) was conducted. The response time analysis was conducted using travel distances that were derived from Google road data and Project development plan data. Travel times were calculated applying the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH) as well as the nationally recognized Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard formula (T=0.65 + 1.7 D, where T= time and D = distance) for comparison. The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration, and acceleration, and does not include turnout time. (Dudek, 2025, p. 49)
Table 49, Project Emergency Response Analysis using Speed Limit Formula, and Table 50, Project Emergency Response Analysis using ISO Formula, present tabular results of the emergency response time analysis using the distance at speed formula and the ISO formula, respectively. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add 2 to 3 minutes to travel time. CFD Fire Station 6 would provide an initial response as the closest existing CFD fire station. As indicated in Table 49 and Table 50, the total response time from Station 6 to the furthest point within the project development does not fully conform to the CFD current response time standard of 6 minutes and 50 seconds for “Urban” areas; however, the total response time does substantially conforms to the Citygate Assessment recommended best practice goal of 7 minutes and 30 seconds response time 90% of the time for urban areas and is estimated to arrive within approximately 7 minutes and 29 seconds (Speed Limit Formula) or 8 minutes and 05 seconds (ISO Formula). All response calculations are based on an average response speed of 35 mph, consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710. (Dudek, 2025, p. 49)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Table 49 Project Emergency Response Analysis using Speed Limit Formula Station
Travel Distance
to Project
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project Entrance1
Maximum Travel
Distance2
Maximum Travel
Time
Total Response
Time3
CFD Station 6 2.1 miles 3 minutes, 36
seconds
3.2 miles 5 minutes, 29
seconds
7 minutes, 29
seconds
CFD Station 3 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 7
seconds
3.4 miles 5 minutes, 50
seconds
7 minutes, 50
seconds
CFD Station 5 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 7
seconds
3.7 miles 6 minutes, 19
seconds
8 minutes, 19
seconds
1. Assumes travel distance and time to the closest of the three entrances off of Foothill Parkway to the respective fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH) a 35 mph travel speed along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two minutes to travel time. (Dudek, 2025, Table 7)
Table 50 Project Emergency Response Analysis using ISO Formula Station
Travel Distance
to Project
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project Entrance1
Maximum Travel
Distance2
Maximum Travel
Time
Total Response
Time3
CFD Station 6 2.1 miles 4 minutes, 13
seconds
3.2 miles 6 minutes, 05
seconds
8 minutes, 05
seconds
CFD Station 3 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 44
seconds
3.4 miles 6 minutes, 26
seconds
8 minutes, 26
seconds
CFD Station 5 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 44
seconds
3.7 miles 6 minutes, 55
seconds
8 minutes, 55
seconds
1. Assumes travel distance and time to the closest of the three entrances off of Foothill Parkway to the respective fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two minutes to travel time. (Dudek, 2025, Table 7)
Based on these calculations, the Project’s calculated response time from the closest fire station 6 location would not achieve the CFD current response time goals of 6 minutes 50 seconds 90% of the time, however, would substantially conform to the recommended 7 minutes and 30 seconds response time goal 90% of the time and the estimate derived from the Speed Limit Formula is just over the current 7 minute 21 second response time that is being achieved 90 percent of the time by the CFD. Further, it is possible that Stations 3 or 5 would be the first responding unit in areas of the Project closest to them, reducing the estimated response times which were used with a conservative approach of the furthest portions of the Project site from each fire station. And finally, the
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
estimate derived from the Speed Limit Formula is just over the current 7 minute 21 second response time that is being achieved 90 percent of the time by the CFD. (Dudek, 2025, p. 52) The Project would not adversely impact the CFD’s ability to achieve their response time standard due to the low number of calls that are projected as a result of the proposed Project, as the proposed Project only would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), as compared to the City’s 2023 population of 160,238 (USCB, 2024). Thus, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the Project’s increase in demand for fire protection services would not be substantial. However, the determination of whether additional fire response resources are considered necessary would be made by the CFD based on their internal standards of coverage analysis. (Dudek, 2025, p. 52) Although new fire protection facilities ultimately may be needed in the Project area to serve the Project and other future development in the area, it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development of any new fire protection facilities until a specific proposal and design for the facility is prepared by the CFD. Accordingly, impacts due to the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR Addendum (State CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Environmental effects of such fire protection facilities and any associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded fire protection facilities.
Notwithstanding, and as noted by the SHP EIR, the CFD is funded largely through the City’s General Fund, with other funding coming from tax revenue, fees for services, a fee charged to the local ambulance company, the emergency medical service subscription program, and developer impact fees charged to all new development which are used on facilities and equipment. To further ensure that the provision of fire and emergency medical services is not eroded by future development, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed Project, the Project Applicant would be required to pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the “Fire Facilities Fee” as amended in Chapter 3.36 of the CMC to the City for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD, as also was required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-2. These fees would be utilized to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new fire stations, constructing new fire stations, purchasing fire equipment for new fire stations, and providing for additional staff as needed and as identified by the City and CFD. Mandatory payment of fees would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project, thereby ensuring the Project’s impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not exceed applicable service ratios or response times for fire protections services, assuming implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures. As such, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, 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. a.2) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection and law enforcement services.
However, the SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measures PS-3 and PS-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-12 to 4.L-14) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted by the SHP EIR, the Project site is serviced by the Corona Police Department (CPD) within Zone 4. The City’s main police station is located at 730 Public Safety Way, approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the Project site (Google Earth, 2024). As noted in the EIR prepared for the City’s General Plan, according to the 2017-2018 Corona Police Strategic Plan, one of the Corona Police Department’s goals is to maintain adequate staffing ratios, which states that a minimum of one officer per thousand residents is recommended. As also noted in the General Plan EIR, in the 2019-2020 fiscal year there were 149 sworn police personnel and the estimated 2019-2020 officers-per-thousand-residents ratio was
0.91, which was slightly lower than the goal of one officer per one thousand residents. (Corona, 2019, p. 5.15-26) The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Based on the CPD’s desired staffing ratio, the Project would result in the demand for less than one new officer within the City (123 persons x 1 officer/1,000 persons =
0.12 officers). As such, the proposed Project would not directly result in the need for any new police department personnel, and as such the Project would not result in or require any new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which could have an adverse effect on the environment.
Additionally, based on future population growth estimates contained in Connect SoCal, the City of Corona had a population of approximately 155,600 persons in 2019 and approximately 47,100 households. The number of households within the City is expected to increase by 5,800 households by 2050, representing an increase in the City’s population of approximately 19,024 persons (5,800 households x 3.28 persons/household = 19,024 persons).
Thus, the Project’s anticipated 905 residents would represent only 0.65% of the anticipated population growth within the City through 2050. (SCAG, 2024, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 13) As noted by the SHP EIR, the CPD’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties, service fees, and allowed government assistance including the General Fund, development impact fees, asset forfeiture funds, traffic offender funds, and various grants. To further ensure that the provision of police protection and law enforcement services are not eroded by future development, the SHP EIR imposed Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires the Project Applicant to pay the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to CMC Chapter 16.23 prior to issuance of building permits, which would provide funding for future public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Based on the preceding analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements of the CPD, payment of the City’s DIF fee, and mandatory compliance with applicable provisions of the CMC with respect to site design and access, impacts related to police protection and law enforcement services 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.
a.3) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
b) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives parks and recreational facilities. Further, the SHP EIR found that the SHP could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated, and found that the SHP could include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-15 to
4.L-18)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project includes three proposed public parks on 9.25 acres and five private parks on 2.17 acres, for a total of 11.42 acres. However, impacts associated with the construction of these parks has been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum. The physical construction of the on-site public and private parks is addressed under the relevant issue areas identified throughout this EIR Addendum (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources). Under each relevant topic, the Project’s impacts are determined to be less than significant, or mitigation measures from SHP EIR (as modified/supplemented herein) previously were identified to reduce impacts to the maximum feasible extent.
There are no components of the proposed on-site public and private parks that would result in physical environmental impacts that have not already been addressed and accounted for throughout this EIR Addendum.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
According to data available from the United States Census Bureau, the City of Corona has an average of approximately 3.28 residents per household (USCB, 2024). Thus, the proposed Project evaluated herein would generate a future population of approximately 905 residents (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons). In
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
order to meet the parkland standard established by General Plan Policy PR-1.1 of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the Project would require a minimum of 2.72 acres of parkland (905.28 persons x 3.0 acres/1,000 persons = 2.716 acres). The proposed Project would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72 acres of parkland. Accordingly, it can be concluded that because the Project would exceed its parkland requirements, future Project residents would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, as any increased use of existing recreational facilities by Project residents would be offset by other City residents utilizing the public parks proposed as part of the Project. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, because the Project would provide excess parkland on site, the proposed Project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded park facilities off site in order to meet the City’s target parkland ratio. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities off site which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis, 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. a.4) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. The SHP EIR concluded that tis impact was considered less than significant with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-6. (Corona, 2015, p.
4.L-18)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Thus, the Project’s overall demand for school services would be reduced in comparison to the project evaluated by the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the mitigation measures identified in the SHP EIR, which require the payment of required development impact fees to off-set impacts associated with increased demand for school services and facilities, as is also required by CMC Chapter 16.27 (Mitigation of Local School Impaction). Pursuant to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for project-related impacts to school services. As such, and assuming compliance with applicable mitigation measures from the SHP EIR and mandatory payment of school fees in accordance with CMC Chapter 16.27, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
altered facilities for school services, 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. a.5) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. The SHP EIR concluded that this impact would be considered less than significant with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-18 to 4.L-19)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Thus, the Project’s overall demand for library services would be reduced in comparison to the project evaluated by the SHP EIR. Although new library facilities may be under consideration by the City of Corona Public Library (CPL) in the Project area, it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development of any new library facilities until a specific proposal and design for the facility is prepared by the CPL. Accordingly, impacts due to the construction of new or expanded library facilities are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR Addendum (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15145). Environmental effects of such library facilities and any associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded library facilities. Any mitigation measures required for new or expanded library facilities could be funded, in part, from property taxes, including increased property taxes resulting from buildout of the Project site.
To further ensure that the provision of library services is not eroded by future development, the SHP EIR imposed Mitigation Measure PS-7, which requires the Project Applicant to pay the City’s DIF fees pursuant to CMC Chapter
16.23 prior to issuance of building permits, which would provide funding for future library improvements and facilities. Mandatory payment of the City’s DIF fees as required by Mitigation Measure PS-7 and CMC Chapter
16.23 would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to library services to less-than-significant levels.
Based on the preceding analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, Project impacts to library services 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 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) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could 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). The SHP EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified throughout the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-19 to 4.L-23) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017. However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024.
Accordingly, Table 51, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Public Services and Recreation, provides an updated analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2020 General Plan policies related to cultural resources. As indicated in Table 51, the Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to public services and recreation.
Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with General Plan goals and policies related to public services and recreation 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 51 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Public Services and Recreation
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal PR-1: A well-designed system of parks and associated facilities that are sufficient in acreage, type, and
distribution, that are designed to provide a quality
recreational experience, and that meet the diverse needs of Corona residents.
Consistent. As discussed herein, the proposed Project
would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland to meet the City’s target ratio of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.1: Seek all creative means to facilitate the provision of at least three acres for every 1,000 residents of useable, attractive, well-maintained, and amenityappropriate parkland.
Consistent. As discussed herein, the proposed Project
would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland to meet the City’s target ratio of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.2: Provide a variety of park types (e.g.,
neighborhood, community, major, and special user) with
an appropriate mix of amenities that are designed for
accessibility and use to meet the diverse needs of
residents.
Consistent. The proposed Project accommodates three
public parks and five private parks, which would provide a variety of park types to meet the needs of future Project residents.
Policy PR-1.3: Encourage distribution of parks, open space, and recreational amenities throughout the City, to the
extent feasible, to maximize convenient access for
residents, primarily, and secondarily to the business
community.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, as noted above, the Project’s
proposed parks would exceed the amount of required
parkland on site by 8.7 acres.
Policy PR-1.4: Strengthen partnerships and collaborations with the Corona-Norco and Alvord school districts and
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
other community organizations to increase the shared use of facilities for the effective delivery of services and programs.
Project.
Policy PR-1.5: Operate and maintain park and recreational facilities to facilitate a high-quality experience; regularly modernize parks and associated facilities where needed, incorporating best practices in sustainable designs.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-1.6: Enhance the safety of parks and associated facilities through crime design, age-appropriate
playgrounds, crime prevention technology, patrols, and
community volunteer efforts.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. All of the parks proposed on site would meet all applicable City standards.
Policy PR-1.7: Seek feasible alternatives to raise sufficient funds to finance regular maintenance repairs and
modernization of existing public parks as well as the
development of new parks.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-1.8: Enhance options to access parks, community centers, and other recreational facilities through transit, bikeways, and walking paths that are useable for people of all ages and abilities.
Consistent. Policy PR-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the Project’s parks have been designed to integrate to the extent feasible the existing and planned trails and trail head improvements to ensure internal non-vehicular mobility between these amenities.
Policy PR-1.9: Increase stewardship and volunteerism
opportunities for Corona youth, adults, schools, and
community organizations to participate in parks and
recreation events, projects, and programs.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-1.10: Provide opportunities for creative
expression (e.g., public art, signage, pavement design, etc.) to improve the beauty of parks and to celebrate local
history, culture, and values.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PR-2 and Policies PR-2.1 through PR 2.9 Not Applicable. Goal PR-2 and Policies PR-2.1 through 2.9 relate to City recreational programs and are unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PR-3 and Policies PR 3.1 through PR 3.10 Not Applicable. Goal PR-3 and Policies PR 3.1 through PR
3.10 provide direction to City staff and decision makers regarding the availability of educational resources and programming, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PR-6: A comprehensive and quality system of off-road hiking, biking, and equestrian trails that are, to the extent feasible, accessible to people of all ages, and connect residents to natural resources surrounding Corona.
Consistent. The Project incorporates trail heads for existing natural trails within the4 Project’s proposed open space areas as well as trails within the on-site public and private parks, which would be accessible to people of all ages, and would help the City achieve the intent of this policy to connect residents to natural resources surrounding
Corona.
Policy PR-6.1: Strive to identify and connect multipurpose trails to schools, local and regional parks, residential neighborhoods, open space areas, downtown, bikeways,
Consistent. The Project’s proposed parks and trail head improvements would serve to identify and connect the
existing natural trails to the proposed on-site amenities,
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and other community destinations in Corona. and would include a connection to Foothill Parkway, thereby providing access to other portions of the City of Corona.
Policy PR-6.2: Require new developments to provide access opportunities to trails that exist in their area or to
proposed trails linking parks, recreational areas,
neighborhoods, and other areas of high public
concentration with a trail design suitable to the area or contribute improvements, dedications, or fees to extend trails.
Consistent. The Project includes several trail head
improvements, which would serve to identify access
locations to the existing natural trails throughout the Project’s proposed open space areas.
Policy PR-6.3: Encourage creation of a multipurpose trail system for hiking, biking, and equestrian use in areas
commonly used for these purposes, such as along washes, creeks, drainages, hillsides, parks, and other public use areas. Trails created within the MSHCP conservation areas that are not identified as a covered activity in the Western Riverside County MSHCP are to avoid and minimize
impacts on biological resources by following the Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities [MSHCP Section 7.4.2].
Consistent. The Project includes several trail head
improvements, which would serve to identify access
locations to the existing natural trails throughout the Project’s proposed open space areas. The trails would not afford access to any portion of the Project’s open space areas that would include mitigation areas as required by the MSHCP.
Policy PR-6.4: Cooperate with Riverside County in
establishing and completing portions of the county’s
backbone trail system that crosses Corona.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to coordinate with Riverside
County in the establishment and completion of a regional trail system, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.5: Ensure trails that navigate through
residential neighborhoods are not obtrusive, invade the privacy of residents, or jeopardize the safety of
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The trails proposed as part of the Project
would not be obtrusive, invade the privacy of future
Project residents, or jeopardize the safety of
neighborhoods.
Policy PR-6.6: Locate, design, and regulate the use of
multipurpose trails so that they reflect the character and environment where they are located and do not negatively impact natural habitat, wildlife, landforms, or cultural resources or MSHCP Conservation areas.
Consistent. All of the Project’s proposed trails, including natural trails within the Project’s open space areas, are designed to reflect the character and environment where they are located, and because these are all existing trails the trails within the Project’s open space would not
negatively impact natural habitat, wildlife, landforms, or cultural resources or MSHCP Conservation areas
Policy PR-6.7: Initiate and maintain dialogue with federal, state, and local governments to coordinate access and
maintenance of trails that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to coordinate with other
agencies regarding cross-jurisdictional maintenance of
trails, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.8: Promote the safe use of trails and require infrastructure and other public rights-of-way to be
designed and developed to accommodate trails in a
manner that is safe and compatible with the intended
primary use of the rights-of-way or easement, where
feasible.
Consistent. The Project’s proposed trails would occur
either in open spaces, within on-site parks, or within the public rights-of-way, and have been designed to be safe and compatible with the primary uses of these areas.
Policy PR-6.9: Seek available funding for the maintenance Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.9 provides direction to City
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and/or establishment of multi-use trails that accommodate bicycle and pedestrian users.
staff and decision makers related to trail funding, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.10: Consider numerous outlets to make the
city’s Trails Master Inventory or Trails Master Plan and bicycle plan easily accessible to the public to increase public awareness.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.11: Promote the use of trails and bicycle routes through use of wayfinding signs or placards.
Consistent. The Project would include trail head
improvements that would serve to promote the use of the on-site trails.
Policy PR-6.12: Raise public awareness of the health
benefits of walking and bicycling, the safe use of the
streets and sidewalks, and the availability of trails, bicycle routes, and greenways.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.12 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.13: Encourage the establishment of various
trail classifications in the City that are suited to the environmental context on which they are located and the intended purpose and use of the trail.
Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.13 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PR-6.14: Consider establishment of trail heads
and/or staging areas with parking for newly created trails, to the extent feasible; and if the opportunity arises,
incorporate trail heads and/or staging areas into existing trail areas.
Consistent. The proposed public parks on site would
accommodate parking areas, and the parks have been
designed to provide connections to the on-site trail system, including the existing natural trails within the Project’s proposed open space areas.
Goal PS-5: Ensure that there is an adequate service level of law enforcement services provided for all residents, visitors, and businesses throughout the City of Corona.
Consistent. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, the proposed Project would not adversely
affect the service level for law enforcement services.
Policy PS-5.1: Ensure that police staffing, facilities, and equipment are expanded commensurably to serve the
needs of the City’s growing population, business
community, and visitor population.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-5.2: Identify and provide sites for police facility location(s) or substations in different locations based on community need, phasing, and timing; periodically assess the needs for establishing or relocating substations.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would not result in or require any new or expanded police protection facilities.
Policy PS-5.3: Assess the impacts of incremental increases in community development and resulting impacts on traffic congestion, municipal infrastructure capacity, and
emergency response times. Ensure through the design
review process that proposed projects provide mitigation to maintain law enforcement services at acceptable, safe levels.
Consistent. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, the proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to police protection services. In addition, the Project would be required to implement
improvements, pay DIF/TUMF fees, and make fair-share
contributions towards transportation improvements
currently not identified for funding, which would ensure that Project-related traffic does not degrade the Level of Service (LOS) along stury area roadways.
Policy PS-5.4: Periodically evaluate population growth, development characteristics, level of service, and incidence of crime in the City of Corona to ensure that an adequate level of police service is maintained.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, based on the City’s current
standards, the Project would result in the need for less
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
than one sworn police officer. Project impacts to police protection facilities would be less than significant with mandatory payment of the City’s DIF fee.
Policy PS-5.5: Require new and expanded development
projects or those in which change operations to contribute an appropriate amount of impact fees based on their
proportional impact and demand for police services.
Consistent. In conformance with SHP EIR Mitigation
Measure PS-4 and as required by CMC Chapter 16.23, the
Project Applicant would be required to pay the City’s
impact fees, portions of which are allocated to police
services and facilities.
Policy PS-5.6: Cooperate with all Riverside County law
enforcement agencies and other public safety providers to provide backup police assistance and mutual aid in
emergency situations.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-5.7: Conduct periodic police related emergency management exercises with City personnel and
surrounding jurisdictions to maintain readiness for
emergency situations should they arise.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-5.8: Strive to meet police response times for Priority 1 calls throughout the community consistent with the departmental strategic plan and level of service
objectives.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-5.9: Continue to work the Corona-Norco Unified School District to provide services that make school
environments safe and welcoming places for learning and personal enrichment and growth for students.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PS-6 and Policies PS-6.1 through PS-6.6 Not Applicable. Goal PS-6 and Policies PS-6.1 through PS6.6 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to coordination and managing the City’s emergency operations, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PS-7: Encourage the use of land use and
development configuration and site design standards
within residential and other developments to minimize
crime and improve the safety for residents, visitors, and employees.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be subject to all CMC requirements related to land use, development
configuration, and site design standards, and would serve to minimize crime and improve the safety for future
residents and visitors.
Policy PS-7.1: Require larger developments to incorporate site design features that help ensure maximum visibility and security for entrances, pathways, streets and
sidewalks, corridors, public and private open space, and parking lots and structures.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be subject to all CMC requirements related to site design, and the Project’s design would ensure maximum visibility and security for entrances, pathways, streets and sidewalks, corridors,
public and private open space, and parking lots and
structures.
Policy PS-7.2: Require the incorporation of appropriate lighting that provides adequate exterior illumination
around commercial, business park, public spaces, parking lots, and multifamily structures.
Consistent. Lighting within the proposed on-site parks
would meet all applicable CMC requirements for minimum
levels of illumination.
Policy PS-7.3: Work with traffic engineers to develop
methods through design, enforcement, and engineering to reduce the volume and severity of vehicle, pedestrian, and Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.3 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
bicycling accidents citywide and around sensitive land uses such as schools, apartments, and other highly traveled
uses.
Policy PS-7.4: Enhance public awareness and participation in crime prevention by encouraging changes to be made
through crime prevention by design (vegetation selection and maintenance, motion sensors, lighting, etc.) and
establishing and participating with police in neighborhood safety and crime prevention programs (e.g. neighborhood watch).
Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-7.5: Require large-scale retail developments to incorporate video surveillance security systems within their facilities and grounds to monitor open public spaces and, where appropriate and feasible, provide office space for police facilities.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.5 relates to large-scale retail developments, while the Project does not include any
proposed retail land uses. Thus, this policy is not applicable to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-7.6: Provide opportunities for police department review and input regarding appropriate methods to
mitigate the impacts of land use permits that have
functions and characteristics that may impose a higher
than normal level of security and police protection.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-7.7: Provide appropriate security measures
around sensitive essential public facilities, such as water, reclaimed water, radio towers, and other facilities required for use for public health and safety purposes.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PS-8: Ensure that there is an adequate service level of fire protection and suppression services provided for all residents, visitors, and businesses throughout the City of Corona to meet community expectations and budgetary
resources for safety.
Consistent. The analysis of Threshold a.1), above,
demonstrates that the Project would have less-thansignificant impacts on the CFD’s level of service standards with mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.
Policy PS-8.1: Provide needed fire stations and maintain them in good condition to enable timely and effective
response to emergencies in keeping with city standards, community service expectations, and city financial
resources.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, demonstrates that the Project would not result or require any new or expanded fire protection facilities, and the Project would be subject to mandatory payment of the
City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.
Policy PS-8.2: Ensure that fire staff at all levels are sufficient in number and appropriately trained to
effectively plan and respond to all types of fire and related emergencies in the community.
Consistent. The analysis of Threshold a.1), above,
demonstrates that the Project would be adequately served by fire protection facilities, and any new staffing that may be warranted would be funded in part through the
Project’s mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.
Policy PS-8.3: Maintain mutual aid, automatic aid, and
other multi-agency cooperative agreements to ensure that urban fire, wildfire, tactical response, hazmat, and other services are available at all times.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.3 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 PS-8.4: Regular maintain, upgrade, and replace fire apparatus and support vehicles and needed equipment to
be prepared and effectively respond to fire, traffic,
medical, and related emergencies.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-8.5: Conduct periodic fire-related exercises with City public safety personnel and those of nearby
jurisdictions, and the state to remain prepared for
situations requiring multi-jurisdictional coordinated
response.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-8.6: Participate in and conduct regular training of all fire and related personnel to ensure that staff are prepared to address emergency medical, fire, and other
related emergencies in the community.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-8.7: Adhere to and periodically update fire
department strategic plans, policies and procedures, and other internal standards to continuously meet service level requirements and priorities, including department
response times.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-8.8: Ensure that revenues are collected from new development, existing developments, and other land uses in an amount that is commensurate with their respective impact on overall city fire operations.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would be subject to
mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee
pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.
Policy PS-8.9: Continue to monitor and adhere to the latest changes in state legislation and guidelines with respect to fire planning, prevention, and suppression.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PS-9 and Policies PS-9.1 through PS-9.9 Not Applicable. Goal PS-9 and Policies PS-9.1 through PS9.9 provide direction to City staff and decision makers and are unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal PS-10: Reduce fire risk to life and property through effective land use planning and compliance with federal, state, local laws, ordinances, and standards.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would ensure risks to life and property are minimized in compliance with all applicable federal, state, local laws, ordinances, and standards.
Policy PS-10.1: Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of high fire risk areas; if not feasible, require construction and other methods to harden and
minimize damage for existing/planned facilities in such areas.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-10.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy PS-10.2: Require all improved and new homes,
structures, and facilities in the very high fire hazard severity zones to adhere to additional fire safe design standards consistent with state law and local practice.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would fully comply with all
applicable City requirements related to fire safe design and in accordance with applicable State laws and local
practices.
Policy PS-10.3: Require all improved and new Consistent. The proposed Project’s application materials
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
developments to be thoroughly reviewed for their impact on safety and the provision of fire protection services as part of the development review process.
were routed to the CFD for review as part of the Project’s development review process, and all comments received
from the CFD have been addressed as part of revisions to the Project’s plans and application materials.
Policy PS-10.4: Require new and rehabilitated homes and structures to meet or exceed City fire prevention standards and state law, including building access, construction
design, sprinklers, and others as required by Corona Fire.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would meet or exceed City fire prevention standards and all applicable requirements
under State law.
Policy PS-10.5: Require all new commercial, industrial, institutional, multiple-unit housing, mixed-use, and oneand two-family dwelling developments to install fire protection systems and encourage the use of automatic
sprinkler systems where not required by local codes and ordinances.
Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the fire protection
measures included as part of the Project, which include ignition and ember resistant construction, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D and 13R automatic
interior fire sprinkler systems, non-combustible parking areas, managed landscape areas, requirements for water
supply, fire apparatus access throughout, improved
accessibility for fire fighter personnel, and fuel
modification zone implementation, and would meet or
exceed all local codes and ordinances.
Policy PS-10.6: Require fuel modification plans and
vegetation clearance standards for development in
VHFHSZs to protect structures from wildfire, protect
wildlands from structure fires, and provide safe access routes for the community and firefighters within the
project boundary, which may be extended pursuant to
required findings when in accordance with state law, local ordinance, rule or regulation and no feasible mitigation measures are possible.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, the Project would implement fuel
modification zones throughout the proposed development
to protect future on-site structures from wildland fire hazards, and the Project accommodates safe access routes for the community and firefighters within the Project
boundaries.
Policy PS-10.7: Condition approval of parcel maps and
tentative maps in VHFHSZs based on meeting or exceeding the SRA Fire Safe Regulations and the fire hazard reduction around buildings and structures regulations within the
project boundary, which may be extended pursuant to
required findings when in accordance with state law, local ordinance, rule or regulation and no feasible mitigation measures are possible.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Subsection
2.19, Wildfire, the Project would meet or exceed all
applicable SRA Fire Safe Regulations and the fire hazard reduction requirements around buildings and structures as required by the CMC and State law.
Policy PS-10.8: Coordinate with the Utilities Department to ensure that adequate water supply and flows are available for firefighting; where inadequate, ensure provision of offsite water supply and transport.
Consistent. The Project incorporates a 2.5 million gallon Zone 5 reservoir that would be located within the central portion of the Project site, and would serve to ensure
adequate water supplies are available in the local area for firefighting.
Policy PS-10.9: Continue to require visible premise
identification and signage per Corona’s Premise
Identification Guideline that meet or exceed SRA and CFC requirements.
Not Applicable. Policy PS-10.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance. Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format, and have been made to reflect the results of the Project’s PRA. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measures reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.
PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features, all of which shall implement the recommendations of the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (“FPP”; Technical Appendix K to Addendum No. 1 to the Skyline Heights Project (SHP) Environmental Impact Report [“EIR”; State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003]). CFD shall review the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features to ensure that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the FPP including, but not limited to roadway design to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; driveway and fire lane width; turning radii inside and outside; grades/elevations; adequate onsite space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing and locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; availability of adequate firefighting water flow; and approved building materials.
PS-2: Prior to 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.
PS-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the Project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.
PS-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.
PS-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, and in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.
PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the Project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fee to the CNUSD.
PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.
2.16 Transportation
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Reduce the Level of Service (LOS) below LOS
D with the exception of Green River Road at
SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road
intersections for which LOS E is acceptable?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Reduce the LOS below LOS D with the
exception of the segment of Green River Road
west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the
minimum acceptable LOS?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Result in insufficient off-street parking that
would not comply with the City of Corona
parking requirements?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project reduce the Level of Service (LOS) below LOS D with the exception of Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections for which LOS E is acceptable? b) Would the Project reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of the segment of Green River Road west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS? c) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that with regard to construction, aside from the nuisance traffic that would occur as a result of constructionPage 1917 of 3613
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
related activities (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), impacts resulting from construction traffic would be less than significant. With regard to operation, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would add trips to the transportation network. The SHP EIR also found that the Existing With SHP Project, 2020 With SHP Project, and 2035 With SHP Project would result in significant impacts at the four study intersections identified in SHP EIR Table
4.M-7 during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-4, the SHP EIR concluded that these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp.
4.M-23 to 4.M-33)
The SHP EIR also found that under Existing With SHP conditions, a significant impact would occur on Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road if the SHP were to be developed prior to the completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension. In the event that were to occur, the SHP EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-5, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The SHP EIR also found that the SHP would result in less-than-significant impacts to roadway segments under both Year 2020 and Year 2035 scenarios.
In addition, the SHP EIR found that all of the roadways within the SHP have been designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) that would occur on each of the segments. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that no mitigation measures would be required, with exception of Mitigation Measure TR-5. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.M-33 to
4.M-34)
With respect to Threshold c., Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed in 2013, which required that by July 1, 2020, a project’s transportation projects must be evaluated based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) measure, instead of evaluating impacts based on LOS criteria. In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA Guidelines including the incorporation of the SB 743 modifications. The Guidelines changes were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and are now in effect. Therefore, as of July 1, 2020, LOS can no longer be the basis for determining an environmental effect under CEQA, and the analysis of impacts to transportation is now based on VMT. As this threshold of significance addressing VMT was not in place at the time the SHP EIR was certified, this threshold was not evaluated as part of the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, the supporting materials for the SHP EIR disclosed a quantification of VMT. The VMT discussion was utilized in the calculation of air quality emissions only and was not addressed in the context of transportation-related impacts. Although the SHP EIR did not draw a conclusion under the topic of transportation, the SHP EIR contained enough information about projected trip lengths associated with the proposed SHP’s traffic generation that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the project’s potential effect due to VMT on the topic of transportation was readily available to the public.
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. On December 28, 2018, updates to the CEQA Guidelines were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). As part of the updates to the CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of significant for evaluation of impacts to transportation have changed. As required by California SB 743, new Threshold b. of the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation requires an evaluation of impacts due to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which replaced the LOS criteria (i.e., automobile delay) and Congestion Management Plan (CMP) consistency criteria that have been utilized in the past to evaluate potential effects to transportation under CEQA. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), “…a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(c) is clear that “[t]he provisions of [§ 15064.3] shall apply prospectively as described in [State CEQA Guidelines] section 15007.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15007(c) specifically states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” As noted above, the Guidelines changes with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, while the SHP EIR was certified in 2017. As such, and in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.3(c) and 15007(c), revisions to the SHP EIR are not required under CEQA for the proposed Project in order to conform to the new requirements established by State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3. Further, because the proposed Project would result in 16 fewer units than the Approval Project, the proposed Project would reduce the VMT generated by the development of the Project site when compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant.
Although impacts to LOS no longer are considered significant under CEQA, in order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential traffic-related impacts, a Traffic Analysis technical report (herein, “TA”) was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads (herein, “UC”) as required by the City. This report is entitled, “Skyline Heights (TTM No 36544R1) Traffic Analysis,” is dated January 23, 2025, and is included as Technical Appendix J to this EIR Addendum (UC, 2025). As shown in Table 52, Trip Generation Comparison, the proposed Project evaluated herein would result in an overall reduction in daily traffic by approximately 176 trips as compared to the project evaluated in the SHP EIR. Furthermore, the Project’s TA identifies required improvements and DIF/TUMF fee contributions, implementation of which would fully mitigate the Project’s potential impacts to local study area transportation facilities. Accordingly, with mandatory payment of fees and construction of transportation-related improvements as recommended by the Projects’ TA, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not reduce the LOS at any study area intersections below the applicable City LOS standards at any study area facility. 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 substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in the realignment of any existing streets thereby creating a hazardous design feature. With the implementation of the project design features, the SHP EIR found that the proposed roadways within the tract would provide adequate sight access and would not result in a substantial increase in hazards. The SHP EIR Table 52 Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Approved Project1 292 DU 55 164 219 184 108 292 2,780
Proposed Project 276 DU 51 143 194 164 96 260 2,604
Difference in Trips: -4 -21 -25 -20 -12 -32 -176 1 Source: Trip Generation Source: Skyline Heights Traffic Impact Analysis Report, July 16, 2013, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG).
2 DU = Dwelling units.
(UC, 2025, Table 4-2)
concluded that roadway design of the SHP would result in less-than-significant Impacts. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-34 to 4.L-35)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve the realignment of any existing streets, which could potentially create hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The proposed roadways within the Project site have been designed to provide adequate sight access and to meet all applicable City requirements, thereby reducing the potential for hazardous traffic conditions. None of the Project-related roadway improvements would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project is proposed within a portion of the City of Corona that is characterized by residential development, and as such traffic generated by the proposed Project would not result in the introduction of traffic-related hazards due to incompatible uses. 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. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the internal roadways would be constructed to accommodate the projected traffic and would not create hazardous circumstances. In addition, with the implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5 the SHP project would not result in significant impacts at intersections or on roadway segments within the study area. Finally, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would be reviewed by the appropriate agencies to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in accordance with City requirements. The SHP EIR concluded that impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-35) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project is subject to CMC Section 17.59.170 (Fire Protection), which requires the provision of unobstructed fire protection equipment and access easements. The CFD conducted a review of the proposed TTM 36544R1, and determined that the Project’s proposed street design would serve to afford adequate access for emergency vehicles throughout the portions of the Project site planned for development as part of the Project. Furthermore, the Project would not affect any roadways that provide emergency access under existing conditions. With required adherence to City requirements for emergency access, 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.
f) Would the Project result in insufficient off-street parking that would not comply with the City of Corona parking requirements?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would provide parking within garages in each of the single family residences. In addition, the SHP EIR found that parking would be provided on some of the proposed streets. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that the SHP would provide sufficient parking in compliance with the City of Corona parking requirements, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-36)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project is designed to comply with the City of Corona's parking requirements. Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
residential units would include a two-car garage, in accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of spaces required), which mandates two covered parking spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling (Corona, 2024). Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in insufficient off-street parking and the Project would fully comply the City of Corona parking requirements, 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. g) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-36)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The only applicable policies, plans, or programs related to transportation and that are applicable to the proposed Project are the goals and policies contained within the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element. The SHP EIR included an analysis of consistency with the Circulation Element policies that were in effect at the time. However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 53, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Transportation, provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the transportation-related goals and policies from the 2020 General Plan, which are included in the General Plan Circulation Element. As indicated in Table 53, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to transportation. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. 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 53 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Transportation Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal CE-1: A roadway network of complete streets that
provide accessibility for all users of all ages and abilities while maintaining context sensitivity to the land uses
identified in the Land Use Element.
Consistent. The Project site does not include any planned Circulation Element Roadways, while Foothill Parkway is fully improved to its General Plan standard as a Secondary 4 Lane. All proposed roadway improvements on site would be constructed to all applicable City standards.
Policy CE-1.1: Implement complete streets by limiting
capacity to only serve expected demand on City streets
(e.g., do not overbuild roadways) while discouraging
regional cut-through and maximizing accessibility for users Consistent. All roadways proposed as part of the Project have been designed to include the minimum amount of
required right-of-way, and the Project site does not afford any access for regional cut-through traffic.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
to adjacent land uses in a safe and efficient way.
Policy CE-1.2: Support roadway maintenance programs
that inspect, repair, and rehabilitate pavement surfaces in order to preserve the high quality of City streets and
thoroughfares.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding roadway maintenance, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-1.3: Provide for safe roadway conditions by
adhering to nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices.
Consistent. All Project-related roadway improvements
would be in accordance with all applicable City
requirements, which include standards that meet
nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction practices.
Policy CE-1.4: Design and employ traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.4 provides direction to city staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-1.5: Maintain Level of Service D or better on arterial streets in the City. Develop and maintain a list of locations where LOS E or LOS F are considered acceptable and would be exempt from this level of service policy.
Considerations for LOS exemption include lack of available right-of-way, environmental constraints, or other modes of travel (such as bicycle or pedestrians). Key locations
identified for LOS exemption are:
• Green River Road at SR-91
• Lincoln Avenue at SR-91
• Main Street at SR-91
• Sixth Street, between East Grand Boulevard and West
Grand Boulevard
• McKinley Avenue at SR-91
• Hidden Valley Parkway at I-15
• Magnolia Avenue at I-15
• Ontario Avenue at I-15
• El Cerrito Road at I-15
• Cajalco Road at I-15
• Weirick Road at I-15
• Other locations as approved by the City
Consistent. A Project-specific Traffic Analysis (TA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix J. In conformance with this policy, the Project’s TA demonstrates that with Project-related improvements, payment of DIF/TUMF fees, and fair-share contributions for improvements not currently identified for funding, all
study area facilities would achieve an acceptable LOS. All recommendations of the Project’s TA would be made
conditions of Project approval.
Policy CE-1.6: Coordinate street system improvements and signalization with regional transportation efforts, including the Regional Transportation Plan, the State Transportation Improvement Program, the Riverside County General Plan, the Community and Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process, the Congestion Management
Program, and other relevant regional and subregional
efforts and programs.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers related to interagency
coordination, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-1.7: Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow.
Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement
access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.7 relates to driveways along arterials streets, while no arterial streets occur on or adjacent to the Project site.
Policy CE-1.8: Restrict on-street parking on arterial streets, Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.8 relates to parking along
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and in cases where on-street parking may be necessary,
implement design features that separate parking spaces
from street lanes.
arterials streets, while no arterial streets occur on or adjacent to the Project site.
Policy CE-1.9: Design and operate secondary, local, and collector streets to discourage their use as through traffic routes. Utilize residential neighborhood traffic control techniques to reduce cut-through traffic impacts.
Consistent. Given the Project site’s location at the western edge of the City of Corona with the Cleveland National
Forest abutting the property to the west, the Project site would not accommodate any through traffic routes that
could adversely affect future Project residents.
Policy CE-1.10: Require a traffic analysis to be prepared in accordance with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and require projects to mitigate impacts on the City’s circulation system that exceed the City’s adopted service thresholds for near term and future conditions.
Consistent. A Project-specific Traffic Analysis (TA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix J. The Project’s TA was prepared in full
conformance with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, and all recommendations of the Project’s TA would become conditions of Project approval.
Policy CE-1.11: Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for
emergency vehicles, including undeveloped areas or those on the hillsides in high or very high fire hazard severity zones.
Consistent. The Project has been designed to provide
efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles, and
implementation of the proposed Project would improve
fire access to the proposed on-site open space areas.
Policy CE-1.12: Consider the effects on transportation
systems of public utility improvements, including
extensions of underground pipelines and overhead
transmission lines and associated utility rights-of-way.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.12 relates to public utility improvements that could adversely affect transportation systems, while the Project does not include or require any major public utility improvements that could affect
transportation systems.
Policy CE-1.13: Ensure that, to the extent possible, all pipelines and electrical transmission lines are placed
underground.
Consistent. In conformance with this policy, all Projectrelated pipelines and electrical transmission lines would be placed underground.
Policy CE-1.14: Design Sixth Street from Smith Avenue to El Sobrante Road as a Mixed Use Boulevard, including
measures that support mixed-use development. Allow for
the design of Sixth Street from East Grand Boulevard to West Grand Boulevard to be a Downtown District by
reducing this segment to two travel lanes and providing a complete street concept to support Downtown uses.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.14 relates to Sixth Street from Smith Avenue to El Sobrante Road as a Mixed Use
Boulevard, which is located more than two miles from the Project site.
Policy CE-1.15: Recognize the unique character of Special Residential Streets, including Main Street south of Grand Boulevard and Fullerton Avenue between Magnolia
Avenue and Grand Boulevard. Implement improvements
sensitive to adjacent residential uses. These may include parking cutouts, raised medians, roundabouts, bike lanes, special treatments at pedestrian way crossings, peakperiod parking restrictions, and so forth.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.15 relates to Special Streets mostly within the more urbanized portions of the City of Corona, and is not applicable to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-1.16: Plan for emerging autonomous vehicles and transportation network companies (TNCs) by designing
and/or managing curb space to allow for safe pick-up and drop-off.
Consistent. As a proposed residential community, the
Project would accommodate sufficient space for
autonomous vehicles along internal Project roadways.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal CE-2 and Policies CE-2.1 through CE-2.5 Not Applicable. Goal CE-2 and Policies CE-2.1 through CE2.3 and CE-2.5 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to coordination with other regional
transportation agencies and obtaining funding for
transportation improvements, and are unrelated to the
proposed Project. Additionally, while Policy CE-2.4
requires implementing developments to implement the
General Plan Circulation Map, the Project site is not
identified for any Circulation Element roadways, and
improvements to Foothill Parkway, a General Plandesignated “Secondary 4-lane” facility, already are in place.
Goal CE-3 and Policies CE-3.1 through CR-3.3 Not Applicable. Goal CE-3 and Policies CE-3.1 through CR3.3 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to managing the City’s transportation network, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.
Goal CE-4 and Policies CE-4.1 through CE-4.10 Not Applicable. Goal CE-4 and Policies CE-4.1 through CE4.10 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to the public transportation system, while General Plan Figure CE-2 (Transit Routes) does not identify any existing transit routes within the Project vicinity.
Goal CE-5: Develop and maintain convenient bikeway and
pedestrian systems to satisfy both recreational desires and transportation needs using a complete streets approach to accommodate users of all modes, abilities, and needs.
Consistent. 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 on-site roadways would include sidewalks (including, in some areas, curb-separated
sidewalks), and all on-site roadways would accommodate
bicycle traffic.
Policy CE-5.1: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to national standards and
uniform practices; adhere to accessibility requirements for people with disabilities.
Consistent. All improvements proposed as part of the
Project would be in accordance with City standards, which satisfy national standards and uniform practices, and the Project would be required to comply with all applicable components of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Policy CE-5.2: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and encourage new development to provide walkways
between and through developments.
Consistent. The Project incorporates trails and sidewalks that would accommodate non-vehicular access within the
Project site, including a proposed connection for the
Skyline Ridge Trail at Foothill Parkway, which would provide non-vehicular access to existing pedestrian facilities off site.
Policy CE-5.3: Provide for safe accessibility to and use of pedestrian facilities by people with disabilities to
implement accessibility requirements under the American with Disabilities Act.
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable components of the ADA, including all design elements at the Project’s proposed parks.
Policy CE-5.4: Develop bicycle routes in accordance with the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan and implement
other elements of that plan.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to develop bicycle trails in
accordance with the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan,
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
while Figure 3 of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan shows that the only planned bicycle facilities in the Project area is a Class II Trail along Foothill Parkway, which already is in place, and a Class I bike trail along the developed portions of Skyline Drive (east of the Project site), which also already is in place. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to accommodate bicycle traffic along internal
Project roadways and within portions of the Project’s
proposed trail system.
Policy CE-5.5: Develop and maintain a bikeway system that provides connections to routes of neighboring jurisdictions and regional bikeways.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to develop and maintain a
bikeway system providing connections to bikeways and
surrounding jurisdictions, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to accommodate bicycle traffic along internal Project
roadways and within portions of the Project’s proposed
trail system.
Policy CE-5.6: Encourage new and existing development to provide accessible and secure areas for bicycle storage.
Provide bicycle racks or storage facilities at public facilities and require bicycle parking, storage, and other support facilities as part of new office and retail developments.
Consistent. The public park proposed as part of the Project would be improved to include a bike track, bike service station, and bike racks, in conformance with this policy.
Policy CE-5.7: Use easements and/or rights-or-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads, and streets wherever possible for bikeways and equestrian and hiking trails.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding existing public use corridors that may be suitable for trail development, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-5.8: Improve bicycling and pedestrian safety by minimizing conflict points (e.g., bicycle and vehicle
crossings) with motorized traffic, separating bike routes and truck routes where possible, or adding and improving existing facilities with buffers/barriers to separate bikes from vehicle lanes.
Consistent. The Project has been designed to provide for bicycle safety by providing two raised bike crossings within the road within the public park, which have been designed to provide safe trail crossings for cyclists. Additionally, separate trails for hikers and bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway within the public park.
Policy CE-5.9: Coordinate with the Riverside County
General Plan and the Santa Ana River Trails Plan to create an uninterrupted Class I bicycle route through Corona that connects to the Santa Ana River Trail in surrounding cities.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers related to interagency
coordination, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy CE-5.10: Encourage and support safe bicycle riding on City streets. Provide bicycle safety and education
programs through public outreach. Support future bikeway designs that minimize bicycle conflicts with vehicles,
separate bikeways from vehicles where possible, and lower bicycle level of stress.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to promote bicycle safety
through public outreach, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to provide for bicycle safety by providing two raised bike crossings within the road within the public park, which have been designed to provide safe trail crossings for
cyclists. Additionally, separate trails for hikers and
bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway
within the public park.
Goal CE-6 and Policies CE-6.1 through CE-6.7 Not Applicable. Goal CE-6 and Policies CE-6.1 through CEPage 1925 of 3613
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
6.7 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to land uses associated with goods movement (e.g., warehouse developments), and no such uses are proposed
as part of the Project.
Goal CE-7: Provide an adequate supply of convenient
parking for all developments in the City in a manner that is consistent with the goals of managing transportation
demand.
Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to comply
with the City of Corona's parking requirements.
Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed residential units would include a two-car garage, in
accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of
spaces required), which mandates two covered parking
spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling. Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public
parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks.
Therefore, the proposed Project would fully comply the
City of Corona parking requirements.
Policy CE-7.1: Require new developments to provide
adequate off-street parking in compliance with Corona
Municipal Code Chapter 17-76.
Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to comply
with the City of Corona's parking requirements.
Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed residential units would include a two-car garage, in
accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of
spaces required), which mandates two covered parking
spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling. Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public
parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks.
Therefore, the proposed Project would fully comply the
City of Corona parking requirements.
Policy CE-7.2: Allow for the provision of adequate parking that is required to meet the needs of residential uses, commerce, and other land uses and is sensitive to the
context and broader transportation goals of the City.
Consistent. As noted above, the Project has been designed to meet or exceed the City’s minimum required number of off-street parking spaces.
Policy CE-7.3: Encourage employers to include strategic parking provisions in new developments, where feasible, to encourage the use of transit and other modes of travel rather than single-occupancy autos.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.3 relates to employmentgenerating land uses, while the Project includes only residential and park uses and does not include any
employment-related land uses.
Policy CE-7.4: Accommodate joint use of parking facilities as part of an area plan or site plan, based on the peak parking demands of permitted uses in the planning area.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to accommodate joint use of
parking areas, and is unrelated to the proposed Project, which does not include any proposed shared parking areas.
Policy CE-7.5: Encourage the use of shared parking
arrangements in areas with parking shortfalls, downtown and in appropriate mixed-use projects, and along the Sixth Street Mixed Use Boulevard corridor.
Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to accommodate joint use of
parking areas, particularly within the downtown area and in mixed-use developments, and is unrelated to the
proposed Project, which is not located in the downtown
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
area and does not consist of a mixed-use development.
2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? or
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
§ 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
Tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? or • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, went into effect on July 1, 2015, and added the above-listed thresholds to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines on June 3, 2016.
The SHP EIR did not specifically evaluate the issue of Tribal Cultural Resources. Notwithstanding, the SHP EIR included an extensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. As previously indicated herein in Subsection 2.4f), the SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, although the SHP EIR did identify potential impacts to previously-undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources and imposed Mitigation Measure CR-1 to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. In addition, SHP EIR Subsection 4.D, Cultural Resources, documented the tribal consultation efforts that occurred in conformance with Senate Bill (SB) 18. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.D-5 to 4.D-6) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. AB 52 requires tribal consultation for certain development projects and applies only to projects that have a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. As demonstrated by the analysis herein, the proposed Project is fully within the scope of analysis of the SHP EIR, and the Project would not trigger any of the conditions described in § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. As such, an Addendum to the SHP EIR has been prepared for the Project pursuant to § 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the Project would not require a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. Therefore, the provisions of AB 52 are not applicable to the Project.
Although AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed Project, the Project would not result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, were fully evaluated by the SHP EIR, and an updated analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources is provided herein in Subsection f). Consistent with the Project evaluated in the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SHP Mitigation Measure CR-1, which the SHP EIR concluded would reduce impacts to previously-undiscovered archaeological resources to below a level of significance. As such, with mitigation the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. 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.
2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making
this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider
whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section
10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of
Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h. 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) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would result in on-site and off-site wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR found that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level.
Further, the SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts regarding wastewater would be less than significant with mitigation. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-39 to 4.N-44) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Wastewater treatment services for the proposed Project would be provided by the City of Corona Utilities Department. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 (WWTP 1), located at 2205 Railroad Street, between Klug Circle and Citation Circle, or approximately 2.6 miles north of the Project site. The plant operates under and complies with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge and Producer/User Reclamation Requirements Order No. 01-55, NPDES No. CA80000383. Because all wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by proposed sewer lines and sewer mains to WWTP 1, and because WWTP 1 operates under an approved NPDES permit, it can be concluded that the Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Corona, 2021, p. 6- 14)
According to the EIR prepared for the City’s 2020 General Plan Update, WWTP 1 is permitted to treat up to 11.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has an anticipated future treatment capacity of 14.5 MGD (Corona, 2019, Table 5.19-1). As noted by the SHP EIR, the City of Corona Sewer Master Plan estimated that the future development on the Project site would produce approximately 278,050 gpd of wastewater requiring treatment, which the SHP EIR noted was 3.5 times more than the average flows projected for the Approved Project of 78,840 gpd. Using the same wastewater generation factor of 270 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit, the Project’s proposed 276 dwelling units would generate approximately 74,520 gpd requiring treatment, which represents only 26.8% of the total amount of wastewater generation assumed for the site by the City’s Sewer Master Plan and 5.5% less than the amount of wastewater generation assumed for the site by the SHP EIR.
Accordingly, because the proposed Project would generate substantially less wastewater requiring treatment as compared to what is accounted for by the City’s Sewer Master Plan, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. It also can be concluded that the proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
The proposed Project would require the construction of on-site 8-inch sewer mains, service laterals and manholes, which would connect to existing sewer lines located within improved rights-of-way for Mabey Canyon Road and Border Avenue. However, physical impacts associated with construction of the Project, including the Project’s onand off-site sewer improvements, have been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). There are no components of the Projects’ proposed sewer improvements that would result in significant environmental effects that have not already been addressed herein and/or in the SHP EIR. Additionally, prior to recordation of Final Maps for the Project, the City of Corona would require a final wastewater study to confirm the extent of the impact to the City’s existing wastewater system, and to verify the improvements anticipated as part of the Project. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
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 require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that Implementation of the SHP could require or result in the construction of new onsite and off-site water facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR found that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level. Further, the SHP EIR found that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the SHP from existing and proposed entitlements and resources. Thus, impacts regarding water supply and water infrastructure were determined by the SHP EIR to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-34 to 4.N-39)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would be provided potable and recycled water service by the City of Corona Utilities Department. As part of the Project, a series of water and recycled water lines are proposed on site, along with a proposed 0.40 million gallon reservoir proposed in the western portions of the site. The proposed on-site water lines would connect to existing water lines available within Foothill Parkway and Trudy Way. However, the physical environmental effects associated with the construction of the on-site water infrastructure and associated connections to existing facilities has been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. Where significant impacts have been identified, either the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR would continue to apply and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, or new or modified mitigation measures have been added to further ensure impacts to the environment would be less than significant. There are no components of the Project’s proposed water
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
system that have the potential to result in environmental effects not already addressed herein. Therefore, impacts associated with the installation of the Project’s proposed water and recycled water lines would be less than significant.
With respect to water supply, the City of Corona adopted its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in June 2021, and after the SHP EIR was certified in 2017. The City’s UWMP demonstrates that the City would have sufficient water supplies through at least 2045, including during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive dry years. The UWMP accounts for an increase in water demand within the City that is proportionate to the City’s anticipated population growth. Based on future population growth estimates contained in Connect SoCal, the City of Corona had a population of approximately 155,600 persons in 2019 and approximately 47,100 households. The number of households within the City is expected to increase by 5,800 households by 2050, representing an increase in the City’s population of approximately 19,024 persons (5,800 households x 3.28 persons/household = 19,024 persons). Thus, the Project’s anticipated 905 residents would represent only 0.65% of the anticipated population growth within the City through 2050. (SCAG, 2024, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 13; USCB, 2024) Additionally, the Project evaluated herein represents Revision No. 1 to the approved TTM 36544, and the proposed Project includes 16 fewer dwelling units than the Approved Project that was evaluated in the SHP EIR; thus, it can be concluded that the Project’s overall water demand would be less than what was evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR for the Project site. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed to serve the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
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. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR determined that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of project design features would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-44 to 4.N-47)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would entail the construction of extended detention basins on site as well as catch basins, inlets, and storm drain lines that would be constructed within the proposed roadways on site. However, physical environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed Project are evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject headings. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the analysis herein demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related impacts, including impacts associated with the construction of the Project’s on-site drainage system, would be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). There are no components of the Project’s proposed drainage system improvements that would result in impacts to the environment not already addressed
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
herein. Accordingly, and also consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR, impacts due to the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities on site 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. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the SHP area. Further, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would comply with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. The SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-3 through UTIL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a lessthan-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-47 to 4.N-48) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings from the SHP EIR, solid waste collection services for the proposed Project would be provided by Waste Management of the Inland Empire (WMIE). Solid waste generated by the Project ultimately would be disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and/or Badlands Landfill. A summary of these landfills is provided below:
• The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Corona and Cajalco Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The El Sobrante Landfill has a total disposal capacity of approximately 209.9 million cubic yards and can receive up to 70,000 tons per week (tpw) of refuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in November 2024 the El Sobrante Landfill received approximately 62,605.9 tpw of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024a) • The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (State Route 79), south of Interstate 10 and north of Highway 74. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is permitted to receive 5,000 tons per day (tpd) of municipal solid waste for disposal and 500 tpd for beneficial reuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in October 2024 the Lamb Canyon Landfill received approximately 1,720.6 tpd of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024b) • The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue and accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The Badlands Landfill currently is permitted to receive 5,000 tpd of municipal solid waste for disposal and 300 tpd for beneficial reuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in December 2024 the Badlands Landfill received approximately 2,427.9 tpd of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024c)
Using the solid waste generation rate identified by the SHP EIR of 12.23 pounds per household per day, the Project’s proposed 276 dwelling units would generate approximately 3,375.48 pounds per day (lbs/day) or approximately 1.69 tpd. As noted above, based on data available from CalRecycle, the El Sobrante Landfill has a excess weekly capacity of approximately 7,394.1 tons per week (tpw), the Lamb Canyon Landfill has an excess daily capacity of approximately 3,279.4 tpd, and the Badlands Landfill has an excess daily capacity of approximately 2,572.1 tpd. The Project’s anticipated 1.69 tpd (11.81 tpw) of solid waste requiring disposal would represent 0.16%
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
of the excess weekly available capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill (11.81 tpw ÷ 7,394.1 tpw x 100 = 0.1598%), the Project’s 1.69 tpd would represent only 0.05% of the excess daily capacity available at the Lamb Canyon Landfill (1.69 tpd ÷ 3,279.4 tpd x 100 = 0.0515%), and the Project’s 1.69 tpd would represent only 0.66% of the excess daily capacity available at the Badlands Landfill (1.69 tpd ÷ 2,572.1 tpd x 100 = 0.0657%). Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities for the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and Badlands Landfill, it is anticipated that these regional facilities would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project. As such, the Project’s impacts due to solid waste 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.
h) Would the Project 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) 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 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 the Corona Municipal Code). This impact was concluded by the SHP EIR to be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-48 to 4.N-51) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017.
However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024.
Accordingly, Table 54, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Utilities and Service Systems, provides an updated analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2020 General Plan policies related to utilities and service systems. As indicated in Table 54, the Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to utilities and service systems.
In addition, all improvements proposed as part of the Project would fully comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with General Plan goals and policies related to utilities and service systems and impacts due to a conflict with the CMC 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 54 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Utilities and Service Systems Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal IU-1: Secure water supply, water treatment,
distribution, pumping, and storage systems that meet the current and projected future daily and peak water
demands of Corona in an equitable, efficient, and
sustainable manner.
Not Applicable. Goal IU-1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to secure water supply, water
treatment, distribution, pumping, and storage systems that meet the current and projected future daily and peak
water demands of Corona, and is unrelated to the
proposed Project.
Policy IU-1.1: Review, evaluate, and update the City’s
Urban Water Management Plan and related capital
improvement programs on a regular basis in order to
Not Applicable. Policy IU-1.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to review, evaluate, and update the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and related
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
maintain plans for expansion and improvement of
distribution and storage facilities.
capital improvement programs on a regular basis, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-1.2: Evaluate the adequacy of water
infrastructure in areas where intensification of land use is anticipated; coordinate capital improvements planning for all municipal water service infrastructure with the
direction, extent, and timing of growth.
Consistent. Consistent with this policy, as part of their review of the Project the City of Corona evaluated whether the Project would be served by adequate water
infrastructure, and determined that with the Project’s
proposed 2.5-million gallon Zone 5 reservoir within the central portion of the Project site, the Project would be served by adequate water infrastructure.
Policy IU-1.3: Construct, upgrade, maintain, and expand water supply, distribution, pumping, storage, and
treatment facilities in the Urban Water Management Plan and/or as required to meet state and federal standards.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers related to the implementation of the City’s UWMP, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-1.4: Designate, preserve, and acquire land, if necessary, for siting future water supply, storage, and distribution facilities in conformity with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element.
Consistent. In conformance with this policy, the Project would dedicate to the City Lot “M” of proposed TTM
36544R1 for the proposed 2.5-million gallon water
reservoir proposed on site for Zone 5. In addition, Lot “P” of proposed TTM 3544R1 would be dedicated to the City
and would accommodate a proposed 0.6-million-gallon
reservoir for Zone 6A. No other lands within the Project site require dedication for water supply, storage, or
distribution, beyond the Project’s proposed on-site water lines, all of which would occur within the public right-ofway.
Policy IU-1.5: As a condition of permit approval, require adequate water supply, distribution, pumping, storage, and treatment facilities to be operational prior to the issuance of building permits.
Consistent. As demonstrated herein under the analysis of Threshold d), above, there would be sufficient water
supplies available to serve the proposed Project through the 2045 planning horizon.
Policy IU-1.6: Achieve and maintain compliance with all federal, state, and local regulatory standards for drinking water to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Corona.
Consistent. All Project-related water improvements would conform to all applicable federal, State, and local
regulatory standards.
Policy IU-1.7: Require all new development to be served from an approved domestic water supply to protect the
health and safety of the public and groundwater supplies.
Consistent. In conformance with this policy, the Project would be provided potable and recycled water by the City of Corona Utilities Department, and no groundwater
extraction is proposed as part of the Project.
Policy IU-1.8: Through engineering design, construction practices, and enforcement of water regulatory standards, ensure that existing and new land uses and development
do not degrade the City’s surface waters and groundwater supplies.
Consistent. The analysis provided herein in Subsections
2.10 and 2.18 demonstrates that the proposed Project
would not degrade the City’s surface waters or
groundwater supplies.
Policy IU-1.9: Require the costs of improvements to the water supply transmission, distribution, pumping, storage, and treatment facilities necessitated by new development be equitably borne by beneficiaries, either through the payment of fees, or construction of the improvements.
Consistent. The Project Applicant would bear the cost of all on- and off-site water improvements proposed as part of the Project.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal IU-2: Minimize water consumption and urban runoff
generation through site design, the use of water
conservation systems, and other techniques.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources.
Policy IU-2.1: Continue to implement the City’s water
conservation and reuse efforts; review these programs
regularly, and modify them as appropriate and feasible.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-2.2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote use of water-conserving devices and practices in new construction, major
alterations and additions to existing buildings, and
retrofitting of irrigation systems where feasible.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-2.3: Require incorporation of best available
technologies for water conservation, internally and
externally, in new construction and associated site design.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources.
Policy IU-2.4: Expand the recycled water program to
provide water for landscaped medians and other
appropriate open spaces along SR-91 and I-15, in
coordination with Caltrans when feasible.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-2.5: Require that sewer flows be minimized in existing and future developments through water
conservation and recycling efforts.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources, including water usage associated with the Project’s sewer flows.
Policy IU-2.6: Encourage the use of recycled water by
industrial, commercial, and institutional users through the use of incentives such as differential pricing; require recycled water use for landscaped irrigation, grading, and other noncontact uses in new projects, where feasible.
Consistent. The Project has been designed to
accommodate recycled water lines throughout the
development to provide for irrigation of landscaping within common areas and along public roadways on site.
Policy IU-2.7: Require the use of recycled water for
landscaped irrigation, grading, and other noncontact uses in new developments, parks, golf courses, sports fields, and comparable uses, where feasible.
Consistent. The Project has been designed to
accommodate recycled water lines throughout the
development to provide for irrigation of landscaping within common areas and along public roadways on site.
Policy IU-2.8: Continue to provide and support public
educational efforts to residents, business, and students regarding the importance of water conservation and
recycled water use.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-2.9: Require that grading plans be designed and implemented to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing
rainwater onsite and storing on a temporary, short-term basis to facilitate groundwater recharge rather than relying solely on community drainage facilities.
Consistent. The Project’s drainage system has been
designed to include extended detention basins, which
would allow for infiltration into site soils.
Policy IU-2.10: Require the use of rainwater capture and storage facilities, techniques, and improvements in
Consistent. The Project’s drainage system has been
designed to include extended detention basins, and the
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
residential and nonresidential developments to further
objectives for water conservation.
Project would be served with recycled water resources. In addition, the Project includes a 2.5-million gallon water reservoir to ensure adequate water pressure in the local area.
Goal IU-3: A secure sewer collection and treatment system that meets current and projected future daily and peak
load demands in Corona and protects public health and
the environment in an efficient, equitable, and sustainable manner.
Consistent. All sewer improvements proposed as part of
the Project would be in full compliance with all applicable City of Corona requirements, including the requirements specified in the CMC.
Policy IU-3.1: Review, evaluate, and update the City’s
Sewer Master Plan and related capital improvement
programs on a regular basis to plan for expansion and
improvement of conveyance, storage, and treatment
facilities.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-3.2: Evaluate sewer infrastructure in areas where intensification of land use is anticipated to occur;
coordinate capital improvements planning for service
infrastructure with the direction, extent, and timing of growth.
Consistent. As part of their review of the proposed
Project, the City of Corona determined that the Project’s proposed sewer improvements would be adequate to
accommodate the Project’s wastewater.
Policy IU-3.3: Build, upgrade, maintain, and expand existing sewer collection and treatment facilities where existing systems are deficient in accordance with the Sewer Master Plan and state and federal standards.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-3.4: Require that new development be connected to the municipal sewer system and ensure that adequate
capacity is available for the treatment of generated sewer flows and safe disposal of sludge.
Consistent. The Project would be connected to the City’s sewer system, and the analysis presented herein under
Threshold e) demonstrates that there would be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity at WWTP 1 to treat the
Project’s sewer flows.
Policy IU-3.5: As a condition of approval, require that all new development submit a sewer analysis to the
satisfaction of the City of Corona prior to the issuance of building permits.
Consistent. In conformance with this policy, a Preliminary Sewer Report was prepared for the Project by KWC
Engineers, which demonstrates that with the Project’s
proposed sewer improvements, there would be adequate
downstream capacity to convey the Project’s sewer flows to WWTP 1.
Policy IU-3.6: Restrict and prioritize sewer connections, if necessary, to comply with available treatment capacity.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and there would be sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity available to accommodate the Project’s sewer flows.
Policy IU-3.7: Ensure that sewer connection fees and
charges are reviewed annually and are sufficient to fully fund and support the construction, improvement, and
rehabilitation of sewer facilities.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
Policy IU-3.8: Require that new development be connected to the City’s sewer system.
Consistent. The proposed Project would connect to the
City’s sanitary sewer system, as required by this policy.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy IU-3.9: Continue to require all applicable
industries/businesses to obtain sewer discharge permits from the City and to comply with the City's Waste
Discharge Pretreatment and Source Control Program.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and the Project does not include any proposed
industrial or business land uses.
Policy IU-3.10: Continue to implement, as appropriate, the requirements of the NPDES and SCAQMD regulations,
including requiring the use of Best Management Practices by businesses in the City.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s NPDES permit and all applicable SCAQMD regulations.
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 would include the construction of an on-site drainage system that includes catch basins,
storm drain lines, and extended detention basins, which would adequately attenuate storm drainage flows to below the peak flows that occur under existing conditions.
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 and is unrelated 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 would include the construction of an on-site drainage system that includes catch basins,
storm drain lines, and extended detention basins, which would adequately attenuate storm drainage flows to below the peak flows that occur under existing conditions.
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 easements for designated water-related infrastructure
facilities as a condition of project approval.
Consistent. All of the Project’s proposed extended
detention basins would be conveyed to the City of Corona for long-term maintenance through the City’s Communities Facilities District (CFD).
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. As part of their review of the Project, City of Corona staff reviewed the Project’s proposed drainage plan and WQMP and determined that the Project’s proposed
drainage system would be adequate to address the
Project’s stormwater conveyance.
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. Policy IU-4.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and the Project site is not located within the City’s SOI.
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 and is unrelated to the proposed Project.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
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 Project would be required to comply with all City regulatory stormwater quality measures.
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. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins, are
adequate to ensure that runoff from the Project does not degrade the quality of the City’s surface waters,
groundwater system, and 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. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins, are
adequate to ensure that runoff from the Project 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 adjacent to parking lots and streets.
Consistent. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins and
proposed landscaped areas, would ensure that the Project does not result in polluted runoff.
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 Project has been designed to minimize the amount of impervious area while maximizing the amount
of natural open space accommodated on site.
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 analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins and
proposed landscaped areas, would not result in
environmental degradation and would not adversely affect wetlands or other sensitive environments with
implementation of the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures (as
modified/supplemented herein).
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.
Not Applicable. Due to the Project site’s steep topography and shallow depth to bedrock, and due to the need to
preserve sensitive biological habitats within the Project’s proposed open space areas, it would not be feasible for the Project to capture and re-use stormwater runoff
generated on the Project site.
Policy IU-5.6: Implement environmentally and
economically efficient stormwater treatment systems,
Consistent. The Project includes landscaped areas and
proposed extended detention basins, which would be
environmentally and economically efficient.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
whenever practical (such as artificial marshland sewer
treatment).
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, and a copy shall be filed with the City Engineer.
Consistent. The Project Applicant would be required to
obtain an NPDES permit prior to commencement of
grading on site.
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-4.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the applicable NPDES permit.
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 proposed drainage system has
been designed to minimize damage to environmentally
sensitive areas, including the Project’s proposed on-site open space areas.
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. All future Project residents would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations with respect to the handling, storage, and
disposal of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances.
Goal IU-6: Maintain solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services, programs, and regulations in accordance with California mandates.
Not Applicable. Goal IU-6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.1: Provide an adequate and orderly system for collection and recycling or disposal of solid waste for new and existing development in the City and sphere of
influence.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.2: Monitor the adequacy of solid waste
collection and recycling, including organic and electronic waste, for commercial, industrial, and residential
developments for compliance with state law.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.3: Coordinate with Riverside County to ensure the City’s continued use of the El Sobrante Landfill and adherence to county, state, and federal environmental
regulations and local priorities.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.4: Encourage and support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce the solid waste stream;
implement a waste reduction and recycling program within all City offices and facilities.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.5: Continue to operate and expand source
reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting efforts to
continue to reduce waste generation citywide and achieve state-mandated waste diversion goals.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.5 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 IU-6.6: Continue and enhance public educational
programs promoting reuse, recycling, composting, and the safe disposal of waste.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
Policy IU-6.7: Continue to work with providers and
businesses to educate the community and to provide
household hazardous material, used oil, and electronic
waste collection for the community.
Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.
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 biological resources 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 current mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources, and reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.
UTIL-1 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP Corona Utilities Department water connection fees as set forth in Section 13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC.
UTIL-2 Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP Corona Utilities Department sewer connection fees as set forth in Section
13.08.600 of the CMC.
UTIL-3 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Municipal Operations Department prior to approval of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.
UTIL-4 In order to facilitate onsite separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction activities.
UTIL-5 Waste Diversion. The project Applicant shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City of Corona Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. The City shall ensure that the project proponent implements the waste diversion plan objectives.
These requirements shall be specified in the final architectural plans to be approved by the City of Corona Planning and Building Agency prior to issuance of building permits.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
2.19 Wildfire
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impactsto the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Thresholds
2.19.a. through d. were added to the State CEQA Guidelines in 2018, while the SHP EIR was certified by the City of Corona City Council on February 1, 2017. Accordingly, at the time the SHP EIR was certified, Thresholds 2.19.a. through d. were not included as part of Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines and thus were not evaluated by the SHP EIR as a separate environmental issue area. Notwithstanding, the SHP EIR included an extensive analysis of potential impacts due to wildfire hazards within SHP EIR Subsection 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As evaluated under Threshold h. of SHP EIR Subsection 4.G, 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)
a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted by the EIR prepared for the City’s 2020 General Plan Update, the City of Corona has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The LHMP identifies the City’s hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies, with a focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses. However, neither the LHMP nor the EOP identify any measures that would be affected by the proposed Project, and there are no components of the proposed Project with the potential to conflict with the LHMP or EOP. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with an adopted emergency response plan would be less than significant.
In addition, the Project site is located at the western end of the City of Corona, with the Cleveland National Forest abutting the majority of the Project site on the west/southwest. The Project site does not include any existing evacuation routes under existing conditions, and at buildout the Project would not serve as an evacuation route with exception of Project residents/visitors. There are no components of the proposed Project that would interfere with emergency access routes in the local area, such as Foothill Parkway or SR-91. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with local emergency evacuation routes would be less than significant.
Based on the preceding analysis, 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. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously noted, a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was 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).
The Project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and is covered with a mixture of sage scrub, grasslands, and riparian habitats (L&L, 2024, Table 10; Corona, 2020). Under existing conditions, a worst-case fire under gusty Santa Ana winds and low fuel moistures adjacent to the Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate- to- high intensity through the non-maintained surface shrub and chaparral dominated fuels in the adjacent open space areas directly to the west and or south of the Project site. Worst-case fire behavior under peak weather conditions is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the south/southeast during a fall, extreme Santa Ana wind event. Under such conditions, expected surface flame lengths are expected to reach up to approximately 23 feet under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 44 feet with wind gusts up to 50+ mph). Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach approximately 5,480 British Thermal Units (BTU)/feet/second under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 11,681 BTU/feet/second with wind gusts up to 50+ mph), fast spread rates up to 1.7 mph under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 6.7 mph with wind gusts up to 50+ mph), and could have a spotting distance up to 0.7 miles under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 2.4 miles away with wind gusts up to 50+ mph). Thus, under existing conditions the Project site is highly susceptible to wildland fire hazards. (Dudek, 2025, p. 39)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Although the Project site is susceptible to wildland fire hazards, the Project has been designed to be ignition resistant and to include professionally managed and maintained fire protection components, modern fire code compliant safety features, and specific measures provided where ignitions are most likely to occur (such as roadways). Specifically, and as more fully described in Subsection 5.4.1 of the Project’s FPP, the Project would be required to implement Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) treatments, which would include four separate zones based on the distance from on-site structures. These FMZ treatments are described below and are depicted on Figure 13, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan. (Dudek, 2025, pp. 69-72) • Zone 0: Ember Resistant Zone – Non-Combustible (from exterior structure walls to 5 feet). The EmberResistant Zone has been proven to be the most important defensible space zone for protecting a structure against a wildfire and would be used as an alternative materials and methods (AM&M) of construction for the proposed Project. When required, Zone 0 would consist of the immediate area surrounding the perimeter of all structures and would be measured from the exterior wall of the structure outward to 5- feet (horizontal) and falls within the irrigated Zone A FMZ. The ember-resistant zone is designed to keep fire or embers from igniting materials that can spread the fire to individual homes. This zone generally consists of hardscaping and other non-combustible elements, with no vegetation allowed within this zone. • Zone A: Setback Irrigates Zone (Zone – to 30 feet from structures). The purpose of the setback zone is to provide a defensible space for fire suppression forces and to protect structures from radiant heat and convective heat. No combustible construction would be allowed within the 30-foot setback zone (Zone A). This zone is to be located on a level graded area, at the top or base of slope and immediately adjacent to the protected development. This zone generally would consist of fire-resistant landscaping that is automatically irrigated, with no flammable vegetation, dead plants, non-irrigated grass, or weeds. • Zone B: Irrigated Zone (30 feet to 100 feet from structures). This portion of fuel modification would consist of irrigated landscaping. These irrigated zones are typically a minimum of 50 feet in width, but has been increased to 70 feet for this Project as an effort to have a greater reduction in flame lengths, which would reduce the chance of ignition of any structures. Zone B would be cleared of all combustible plant species, irrigated, and planted with plants from the Corona Fire Department (CFD)-approved FireResistant Plant List that would be maintained at a height not to exceed 24 inches. Exceptions to save desirable species may be submitted for approval by the CFD on a site-specific basis. As in Zone A, combustible construction is not allowed in Zone B.
• Zone C: Thinning Zone (100 to 170 feet from structures). Zone C would be 70 feet in depth and would require 50% thinning and removal of all dead and dying and undesirable species. Zone C typically is only 50 feet in depth, but has been increased to 70 feet in order to further ensure future structures on site are protected from wildland fire hazards. The Project’s FPP calls for the code-complying minimum of 170 feet while including the code-exceeding features of increased irrigation and thinning. Thinning zones would be utilized to reduce the fuel load of a wildland area adjacent to the structure(s), thereby reducing the radiant and convective heat of wildland fires.
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Figure 13 Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan
(Dudek, 2025, Figure 10)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
In addition to the FMZs surrounding structures, the Project’s FPP also includes a variety of recommendations related to sitewide landscape management. These recommendations include the following: (Dudek, 2025, pp. 73- 74)
• Roadside-Adjacent/Fire Access Road Defensible Space Zone. The roadside-adjacent defensible space zone would occur in the general locations depicted on Figure 13 and would extend a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of any public or private roadway that may be used as access for fire-fighting apparatus or resources. Flammable growth would be cleared and removed for a minimum of 10 feet on each side of the access roads. Additional clearance up to 50 feet may be required upon inspection per the Roadside Protection Zone (RPZ) distinction in the CFD Vegetation Management Guideline for New Construction Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Program (VMG). These treatments would be required for all areas within the Project site.
• Special Maintenance Areas (SMAs). In accordance with the VMG, slopes and commonly owned areas interior from the community perimeter may be designated as SMAs with specific vegetation management requirements. These areas must be included in Planting Plans and would be reviewed by the CFD. If, upon review, an interior area is determined to contribute to an increased wildfire risk, the first 100 feet of the interior area, measured from the structure out, would be declared an SMA and be subject to the same defensible space requirements as the FMZs. These areas must be irrigated and with a maximum width of 100 feet beginning at the property lines of privately owned lots. SMAs would have the same plant species restrictions and requirements described for FMZs (as listed in Appendix E to the Project’s FPP). • Horizontal Spacing/Vertical Separation in FMZs. Continuity of fuels is a significant contributing factor to the rate of spread of fire on a landscape. Plant communities with little spacing and higher continuity support much higher rates of spread while plant communities with greater spacing and less continuity do not support as high of rates of spread. For this reason, the VMG lays out specific spacing guidelines for ground cover, shrubs, and trees within the FMZs.
• FMZ Plant Requirements. The following requirements are provided for fuel modification zones. All landscaping shall be maintained by the Property Manager/HOA representative, and/or homeowner.
Plants used in the fuel modification areas or landscapes would include drought-tolerant, fire-resistive trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The planting list and spacing would require review and approval by CFD, based on submitted landscape plans. The plantings would be consistent with the CFD/Riverside County Fuel Modification Zone Friendly Plant List (Appendix F to the Project’s FPP). The list intends to provide examples of plants that are less prone to ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and combustible structures during a wildfire. Up to 10 additional plant species can be added to the landscape plant material palette with approval from CFD. The same selection requirements would apply to SMAs and RPZs. • Prohibited Plants. Certain plants are considered prohibited in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly flammable or invasive. These characteristics can be physical (structure promotes ignition or combustible) or chemical (volatile chemicals increase flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Undesirable and Invasive Plant Species list (refer to Appendix E to the Project’s FPP) are unacceptable from a fire safety or ecological standpoint and shall not be planted
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
or allowed to establish opportunistically within the FMZs or landscape areas. The same selection restrictions would apply to SMAs and RPZs.
• Fire Walls. Because of property boundary constraints, a small portion on the eastern side of Planning Area 2 adjacent to the “Not A Part” area of the Project (i.e., TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 28 through 32), as well as in the southeast portion of Planning Area 3 (i.e., TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 1 and 2), are unable to achieve a minimum 100 feet of on-site fuel modification. To mitigate for the reduced FMZ, a 6-foot-tall noncombustible Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) fire wall would be constructed in multiple locations along the property boundary line around TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 1 through 14, 28 through 32, 76 through 78, 85 through 97, 111 through 115, 121, 122, and 127 through 144 where the full 100 feet of onsite fuel modification cannot be achieved. Figure 13 shows the portions of the site that would require CMU fire walls. The fire walls would be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls.
In summary, the requirements and recommendations set forth in the Project’s FPP indicate how the Project would conform with required fire and building codes. The recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP have also been designed specifically for the proposed construction of structures within areas designated as VHFHSZ. When properly implemented on an ongoing basis, the fire protection strategies proposed in the Project’s FPP would significantly reduce the potential fire threat to vegetation on the community and its structures, as well as assist CFD in responding to emergencies within the Project site. The fire protection system provided for the Project site includes a redundant layering of code-compliant, fire-resistant construction materials and methods that have been shown through post-fire damage assessments to perform extremely well against wildfire and ember storm conditions. To address areas where the Project is unable to meet the minimum Fire Code standards due to site constraints, code-exceeding measures have been suggested to meet the intent of the provisions of the Fire Code.
The proposed Project would include up to 170-foot-wide fuel modification zones that would be in excess of code requirements, along with ignition resistant construction that would exceed the requirements of one of the most restrictive fire and building codes in the country. The use of these methods and materials along with ongoing maintenance would result in a community that would be highly defensible with minimal firefighting resource demands. Projects occurring within fire hazard severity zones and wildland urban interface areas with higher potential fire hazards represent lower overall fire safety risk when the buildings and community are built to ignition resistant levels as required by CFD. Conversely, older communities that do not include the ignition resistant strategies may occur in a location that represents lower potential fire hazards outside of a fire hazard severity zone or wildland urban interface, but may actually be at higher overall fire risk due to the vulnerabilities inherent in their construction. (Dudek, 2025, p. 94)
Modern infrastructure would be provided, and all structures are required to include interior, automatic residential fire sprinkler systems consistent with the City’s regulatory standards and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard No. 13-D. The Project’s FPP also provides guidance for vegetation maintenance for the proposed FMZs and landscaped areas on the Project site. The requirements and recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP have been designed specifically for the proposed Project. The analysis and its fire protection justifications as documented in the Project’s FPP are supported by fire science research, results from previous wildfire incidents, and fire agencies that have approved these concepts. The Project design would feature ignition-resistant construction, asphalt roads and parking stalls, sufficient water supply, and up to 170 feet of on-site fuel modification. (Dudek, 2025, p. 94)
SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
In addition, and assuming implementation of the Project’s proposed drainage system, implementation of the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures would ensure that future Project structures are not exposed to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the preceding analysis, and assuming mandatory compliance with the recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Compliance with the Project’s FPP would be required pursuant to SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1, which has been modified herein to reference the Project’s FPP and to specifically require CFD review of implementing building permits and landscape plans for compliance with the FPP recommendations. Accordingly, with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1 and the recommendations of the Project’s FPP, 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 require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As described above under the analysis of Threshold b), the proposed Project would include FMZs that would extend up to 170 feet from all proposed structures on site, would include a 10-foot clearance zone along internal roadways that directly abut open space areas, and would include the installation of fire walls in certain locations. However, physical impacts associated with implementation of the Project’s fire protection measures, including the proposed FMZs, have been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. For example, the discussion and analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources in Subsection 2.4 accounts for physical impacts associated with development of the Project, including the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures, as previously shown on Figure 9. There are no impacts to the environment that could result from the Project’s FMZs and fire protection measures that have not already been addressed herein and/or in the SHP EIR, and all of the Project’s physical impacts to the environment would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). Additionally, the Project’s proposed fire protection measures would reduce the Project site’s potential for wildfire hazards as compared to existing conditions, and there are no components of the Project that would exacerbate wildfire hazard risk. Accordingly, because the Project would not exacerbate fire risk, and because impacts to the environment associated with the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures would be reduced to lessthan-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein), Project impacts due to fire protection infrastructure 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.