Agenda packet — Corona City Council, July 1, 2026 (part 20 of 33)

Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-48 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure GEO-22: Slope Planting, Irrigation And Maintenance. General guidelines for slope planting, irrigation and maintenance are shown below:
a) Slope planting shall consist of appropriate drought resistant vegetation as recommended by the Landscape Architect. Landscaping of slopes shall be completed as soon as possible and properly maintained.
b) The property owner is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of installed irrigation systems. Leaks shall be repaired immediately. Sprinklers shall be adjusted to provide maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Over-watering with consequent excessive runoff and ground saturation shall be avoided. c) If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use shall be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions.
d) All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down-drains, and any other drainage devices that have been installed shall be maintained and cleaned. e) If rodent activity is present, the property owner shall undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. This shall be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability.
f) Water shall not be allowed to flow over the constructed or natural slopes.

This may require the construction of berms or ditches along the top of slopes, if such devices are not in place.

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

Page 2036 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-49 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.E-2: Project
construction would require
mass grading on the site and
removal of fill, alluvium, and
other loose materials. Best
Management Practices would
be implemented in accordance
with an approved Erosion
Control Plan. After
construction, any non-paved,
exposed areas would be
landscaped. Therefore, with
compliance with applicable
requirements, impacts
regarding soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil would be less
than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.E-3: Mass grading at
the site has the potential to
reduce slope stability and
result in settling and other
geologic hazards. However,
adherence to the design and
remedial grading and
monitoring recommendations
of the Geotechnical Report, as
required by Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 through GEO- 15, would reduce such impacts to a less than significant level.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-15. Less Than Significant

Page 2037 of 3613 ends

Any soils with high or critical
expansion potential would be
replaced with compacted fill
with low or medium expansion
potential as required by
Mitigation Measure GEO-4.

Design of foundations to meet
medium soils expansion
potential, as required by
Mitigation Measure GEO-10,
would reduce risks to life or
property to a less than
significant level.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures GEO-4 and GEO-10. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.E-5: The project
would be served by the City’s
wastewater system.

Infrastructure (i.e., pipes)
would be installed to
accommodate the proposed
expansion. No significant
impact would occur with
regard to soils supporting
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2038 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-51 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.E-6: The proposed
project would comply with all
requirements related to
seismic and geologic hazard
safety standards. The project
would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulations adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating physical impacts
associated with geology and soils and impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 through GEO- 23.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23. Less Than Significant
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.F-1: Based on a
threshold of significance
determined by the City of
Corona to be functionally
equivalent to those in its CAP,
project implementation would
generate GHG emissions such
that a less than significant
impact on the environment
would occur.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2039 of 3613 ends

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.G-1: Project
implementation would result
in the development of the
currently largely undeveloped
site with 292 residences,
roads, landscaping, and
detention basins, which would
result in an increase in the use,
storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous
materials. During
construction, hazardous
materials, such as gasoline and
oil would be used. During
occupancy of the residences
household hazardous
materials, such as pesticides,
cleaners, paints, and pool
supplies would be used and
stored on site. Compliance
with applicable regulations
would reduce potential
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2040 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.G-2: The site is
located further than one- quarter mile from an existing or proposed school. The
project would result in the
development of 292 singlefamily residences. While some hazardous materials are used
in homes, the quantities are
generally small. Therefore, the
project would not result in the
handling or emissions of
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mole of an existing or proposed school and no
significant impact would occur.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.G-3: Based on the
Phase I ESA, the site is not
located on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5. As the project
would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment, no significant
impact would occur.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2041 of 3613 ends

Therefore, the project would
not result in a safety hazard for
people living in the subdivision
as a result of a public airport or
private airstrip.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.G-5: The project
would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation associated with
hazards or hazardous
materials. The residential
subdivision would not
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan. The project would be
consistent with the applicable
General Plan policy. Thus, no
significant impacts would occur.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.G-6: With the
implementation of the fuel
modification plan the project
would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 under Public Services below. Less Than Significant

Page 2042 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-55 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
involving wildland fires. Thus,
no significant impact would
occur with regard to wildland
fires with implementation of
applicable project design
features and mitigation measures. H. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.H-1: Construction
and operation of the project
would comply with all
applicable regulatory
requirements regarding water
quality. Compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of the project
design features, including
BMPs as part of the project’s
WQMP, would ensure that
construction and operational
water quality impacts would
be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.H-2: The project
would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2043 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.H-3: The project
would be designed to maintain
existing drainage patterns of
the site and area. Post
development runoff would be
consistent with applicable
regulatory requirements and
the post-project site would not
result in significant hydrology
impacts downstream such that
flooding or erosion would occur on- or off-site.

Furthermore, the project
would not create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater
drainage. Overall, impacts
regarding changes in drainage
patterns and stormwater flows
would be less than significant
with mitigation.

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

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.H-4: Implementation
of the project would not
expose people and structures
to flood hazards since
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2044 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.H-5: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the General Plan and
Municipal Code) with regard to
hydrology, drainage, flooding,
and water quality. Therefore,
the project would result in a
less than significant impact.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
I. Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.I-1: The proposed
project would not physically
divide established residential
communities in the vicinity of
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2045 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.I-2: The proposed
project would result in less
than significant land use
impacts with regard to
consistency with the CKH Act,
SCAG’s Regional
Comprehensive Plan, RTP/SCS
and Compass Blueprint Growth
Vision, and the City of Corona
General Plan. With the
approval of the requested
amendments to the General
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2046 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.I-3: The proposed
project would not conflict with
any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.

The project site is located
within the Temescal Canyon
Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP.

The payment of a development
mitigation fee is intended to
provide full mitigation.

Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
J. Noise
Impact 4.J-1: Implementation
of the proposed project 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 proposed
project would comply with the
City of Corona’s Noise
Ordinance, construction noise
impacts would be less than
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure NS-3: Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment Less Than
Significant

Page 2047 of 3613 ends

Mitigation Measure 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).

Mitigation Measure NS-5: The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Impact 4.J-2: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not result in exposure of
persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne
noise levels. Impacts would be
less than significant in this
regard.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2048 of 3613 ends

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.J-4: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the proposed project with
regard to noise (including, but
not limited to the General Plan
and Municipal Code). This
impact is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
K. Population, Housing, and Employment
Impact 4.K-1: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not induce substantial
population, housing, or
employment growth in the
project area beyond that
anticipated by SCAG
projections. Further,
implementation of the
proposed project would not
displace substantial numbers
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2049 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.K-2: Implementation
of the proposed project 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
is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
L. Public Services
Impact 4.L-1: Implementation
of the proposed project 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
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure 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 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 on-site 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.

Mitigation Measure PS-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees Less Than
Significant

Page 2050 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-63 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
or other performance
objectives for fire protection
and emergency medical
services. However, compliance
with applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of the project
design features and prescribed
mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant
impacts in these regards to a
less than significant level.
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.

Impact 4.L-2: Implementation
of the proposed project 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, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-3: Prior to the 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Less Than
Significant

Page 2051 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.L-3: Implementation
of the proposed project 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 proposed project 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 the proposed project could include
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure 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, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.

Less Than
Significant

Page 2052 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-65 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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 prescribed
mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant
impacts in these regards to a
less than significant level.

Impact 4.L-4: Implementation
of the proposed project 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. This
impact is considered less than
significant with mitigation
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the CNUSD.

Less Than
Significant

Page 2053 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.L-5: Implementation
of the proposed project 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.

This impact is considered less
than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure 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 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.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.L-6: Implementation
of the proposed project 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). This impact
is considered less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-7. Less Than Significant

Page 2054 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-67 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
M. Transportation
Impact 4.M-1: With
regard to construction, aside
from the nuisance traffic that
would occur as a result of
construction-related activities
(e.g., construction materials,
construction workers, etc.),
impacts resulting from
construction traffic would be
less than significant. With
regard to operation, the
project would add trips to the
transportation network. The
Existing With Project, 2020
With Project and 2035 With
Project would result in
significant impacts at the four
study intersections identified
in the table below during the
a.m. or p.m. peak hours. With
the implementation of
recommended mitigation
measures, the impacts would
be reduced to a less than
significant level.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure TR-1: Intersection 3 – Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue:

If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation.

Mitigation Measure TR-2: Intersection 4 - Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation shall be installed. Intersection improvements shall include: 1) restriping of the eastbound shared left- through lane and the exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane and 2) restriping of the westbound shared left-through lane and the exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane.

Mitigation Measure TR-3: Intersection 10 - Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for five-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City.

Mitigation Measure TR-4: Intersection 11 - Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway:

Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.M-2: Under Existing
With Project conditions, a
significant impact would occur
on Paseo Grande between
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure TR-5: Roadway Segment 2 – Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then the Applicant shall improve this roadway segment to a 4-Lane Secondary Roadway to the Less Than
Significant

Page 2055 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.M-3: The project
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
proposed roadways within the
tract would provide adequate
sight access and would not
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2056 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.M-4: The
internal roadways would be
constructed to accommodate
the projected traffic and would
not create hazardous
circumstances. In addition,
with the implementation of
mitigation measures the
project would not result in
significant impacts at
intersections or on roadway
segments within the study
area. Finally, the project
would be reviewed by the
appropriate agencies to ensure
that adequate emergency
access is provided in
accordance with City
requirements. Impacts with
regard to emergency access
would be less than significant.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.M-5: The
project would provide parking
within garages in each of the
single family residences. In
addition, parking would be
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2057 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.M-6: The
project 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, impacts would be less
than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
N. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.N-1: Implementation
of the proposed project could
require or result in the
construction of new on-site
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, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP water connection fees as set forth in Section 13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC. Less Than
Significant

Page 2058 of 3613 ends

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-71 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation
measures would reduce
potentially significant impacts
in these regards to a less than
significant level. Further, the
project site would have
sufficient water supplies
available to serve the proposed
project from existing and
proposed entitlements and
resources. Thus, impacts
regarding water supply and
water infrastructure would be
less than significant.

Impact 4.N-2: Implementation
of the proposed project could
require or result in the
construction of new 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, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation measure
would reduce potentially
significant impacts in these
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP sewer connection fees as set forth in Section 13.08.600 of the CMC.

Less Than
Significant

Page 2059 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.N-3: Implementation
of the proposed project 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, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of project
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2060 of 3613 ends

Impact 4.N-4: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not exceed the capacity of the
landfill serving the project
area. Further, the proposed
project would comply with
federal, state, and local statues
and regulations related to solid
waste. Compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of prescribed
mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant
impacts in these regards to a
less than significant level.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: In order to facilitate on-site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction activities.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.N-5: Implementation
of the proposed project 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
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant

Page 2061 of 3613 ends

O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.B-1: The proposed
project would not directly
convert, or otherwise result in
the conversion of, any existing
agricultural land to non- agricultural uses, or forest land to non-forest use, and would
not trigger a significant impact
per the LESA Model. As such,
impacts related to conversion
of farmland and forest land
would be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.B-2: The proposed
project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural
uses or forest land or a
Williamson Act contract. As
such, impacts in this regard
would be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.

Page 2062 of 3613 ends

Page 2063 of 3613 ends

Page 2064 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) that has been prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the City of Corona (“City”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as amended.1,2 Richland Developers, Inc., the project Applicant (“Applicant”), is seeking various approvals for the development of the Skyline Heights Project (herein referred to as the “proposed project”), as well as approval from the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the project site and surrounding parcels into the City of Corona. The proposed project involves the development of up to 292 single family homes on the 271-acre project site within the approximately 394.8-acre annexation area. A detailed discussion of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.

A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The City of Corona, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, is responsible for preparing the EIR for the proposed Skyline Heights Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Content of an EIR).

In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, a primary purpose of this EIR is to provide decision-makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, identify ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, this EIR is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project.

The City, which has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the proposed project, will use and consider information in this EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process, to make a decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. Significant environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project.

This is termed, per Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “statement of overriding considerations.” This document analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the currently proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. This analysis considers the actions associated with the proposed project, to determine the short-term and long- 1 Public Resources Code Section 21000-21178. 2
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387.

Page 2065 of 3613 ends

1. Introduction December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-2
term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this proposed project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA requires the preparation of an objective, full disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action; provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant adverse effects; and identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. This Draft EIR is intended to serve as a Project EIR under CEQA. Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Project EIR should focus primarily on changes in the environment that would result from development of the proposed project. A Project EIR must examine all phases of a project, including planning, construction, and operation. This Project EIR is intended to provide the environmental information necessary for the City to make a final decision on the requested entitlements for this proposed project. This EIR is also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other agencies.

B. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Draft EIR is subject to a 45-day public review period by responsible and trustee agencies, members of the public and other interested parties. In accordance with the provision of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, serving as the Lead Agency will: 1) circulate a Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR to all residents within 500 feet of the project site, in addition to public agencies, interested individuals, and/or organizations that commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and 2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse. Proof of publication is available at the City. The NOA indicates the Draft EIR will be available for review at: the City’s website - http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/ Community-Development/Planning-Division.aspx; the City Planning Division offices located at 400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882; and the Corona Public Library located at 650 S. Main Street, Corona, California 92882. All comments on the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
City of Corona
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
Re: Skyline Heights Project
Or via e-mail at: [email protected] Any public agency or members of the public desiring to comment on the Draft EIR must submit their comments in writing to Mr. Jason Moquin at the above referenced mailing or e-mail address prior to the end of the public review period. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency will then proceed to evaluate and prepare written responses to all relevant written comments received from both citizens and public agencies during the public review period. The City’s responses at this point in the process will be limited to issues relating to the adequacy of the EIR, and not the relative merits of the proposed project.

The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, corrections and additions to the Draft EIR, responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a

Page 2066 of 3613 ends

December 2015 1. Introduction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-3
copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft EIR will be provided to the respective agency.

C. EIR SCOPING PROCESS
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has provided opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, an effort was made to contact various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed project. This included, as further described below, the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP).

1. Notice of Preparation
Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public for a 30-day period commencing February 4, 2014 and ending March 5, 2014. However, copies of the NOP were subsequently re-distributed to public agencies due to mailing issues, and consequently the public comment period was extended to March 10, 2014. The purpose of the NOP was to formally communicate the City’s intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the proposed project, and to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. A brief description of the proposed project was included in the NOP, along with graphics depicting the location of the proposed project and the proposed improvements. The NOP indicated that the City of Corona determined that there is substantial evidence that significant effects may occur from the project, thereby necessitating the preparation of an EIR. The EIR addresses the following topical areas with potentially significant impacts as identified in the NOP: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Cumulative Impacts. The NOP is provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters, of this Draft EIR.

2. NOP Comments
As noted above, the NOP was distributed to the public and various public agencies on February 4, 2014 in order to receive input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be provided in this EIR. In an effort to ensure comments were accurately recorded, the City requested that all comments be submitted in writing by either providing written comments by mail or via e-mail. Comments on the scope and content of the EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Federal Agencies
United States Department of Agriculture
State Agencies
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional Agencies
Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast Air Quality Management District

Page 2067 of 3613 ends

1. Introduction December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-4
Local Agencies
Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency Orange County Department of Public Works
Organizations
Southern California Edison
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Individuals
Mark German
Steve Ford
Brian Mowcomber
Dwight Woodward
Mark and Shelley Drew

3. Public Scoping Meeting
The NOP included notification that a public scoping meeting would be held to further inform public agencies and other interested parties of the proposed project and to solicit input regarding the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting was held on March 4, 2014 at 6:30 P.M. in the Grand Boulevard Room of the City of Corona Public Library located at 650 South Main Street, Corona, California 92882. The meeting was held in a workshop format and provided interested individuals, groups and public agencies the opportunity to understand the proposed project and to provide oral and written comments to the City regarding the scope and focus of the Draft EIR. Public comments received at the Scoping Meeting are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. 4. NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Comments The following list summarizes the environmental concerns raised by public agencies, organizations, or individuals in response to the NOP or provided at the public scoping meeting (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR section in which the analysis is provided). All NOP and Scoping Meeting comments received are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Construction-related and operational air pollutant emissions and related air quality and health effects, as well as applicable mitigation measures to address them (refer to Section 4.C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR);

Page 2068 of 3613 ends

December 2015 1. Introduction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-5
Potential impacts associated with unknown contamination on-site or the surrounding area, as well as risks associated with hazardous materials and wastes generated on-site by previous uses (refer to Section 4.H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR); Health risks associated with former uses on the project site, including historic application of pesticides and herbicides (refer to Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR); Hazards to life and property associated with wildland fires (refer to Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts to buried cultural resources resulting from project grading, excavation, and construction activities and treatment of recovered artifacts and/or human remains (refer to Section 4.E, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Potential adverse surface water and groundwater quality from construction and operation of the proposed project (refer to Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR); Impacts to the local and regional traffic system resulting from implementation of the proposed project (refer to Section 4.M, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR); Impacts associated with access to trails in the project area and adjacent Cleveland National Forest (refer to Section 4.L, Public Services, of this Draft EIR); Compliance with the tribal consultation requirements of Senate Bill 18 (refer to Section 4.E, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts to potential historical resources within the project site (refer to Section 4.E, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts to oak trees and other native vegetation (refer to Section 4.D, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Adverse effects on wildlife from project-related lighting (refer to Section 4.D, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts to sensitive habitats, special-status species, migratory and nesting birds, wildlife corridors/movement, and jurisdictional features (refer to Section 4.D, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts to scenic vistas, public views of scenic resources, and light and glare resulting from project implementation (refer to Section 4.A, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR); Safety hazards to existing and future development associated with mudslides (refer to Section 4.F, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR);
Geologic hazards related to landslides (refer to Section 4.F, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR); Consistency with applicable local and regional plans, policies, and regulations (refer to Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR);
Impacts related to annexation of affected parcels into the City of Corona (refer to Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR); and
Impacts to flooding, floodplains, and drainage and flood control facilities, and degradation of water quality in groundwater and affected receiving surface water bodies (refer to Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR).

Page 2069 of 3613 ends

1. Introduction December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-6
D. FORMAT OF THE EIR
The EIR includes the following eight technical sections, followed by appendices:

ES Executive Summary. This section presents a summary of the proposed project and alternatives, potential impacts and mitigation measures, and impact conclusions regarding significant unavoidable adverse impacts and effects not found to be significant.

1. Introduction. This section provides: a description of the purpose of the EIR; CEQA compliance information relative to the proposed project and the EIR; a brief overview of the environmental review process; and, outlines the organization of the EIR.

2. Project Description. Describes the location, details, and the objectives for the proposed project. 3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis. This section contains a list of related projects anticipated to be built within the project vicinity.

4. Environmental Impact Analysis. This section contains the environmental setting, project and cumulative impact analyses, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding the level of significance after mitigation for each of the following environmental issues: (A) Aesthetics, (B) Air Quality, (C) Biological Resources, (D) Cultural Resources, (E) Geology and Soils, (F) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (G) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, (H) Hydrology and Water Quality, (I) Land Use and Planning, (J) Noise, (K) Population and Housing, (L) Public Services, (M) Transportation/Traffic, (N) Utilities and Service Systems, and (O) Agriculture and Forestry Resources.

5. Alternatives. This section evaluates the environmental effects of the project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. It also identifies the environmentally superior project.

6. Other Environmental Considerations. This section includes a discussion of issues required by CEQA that are not covered in other chapters. This includes unavoidable adverse impacts, impacts found not to be significant, irreversible environmental changes, potential secondary effects caused by the implementation of the mitigation measures for the proposed project, and growth inducing impacts. 7. Document Preparation and References. This section lists all of the persons, public agencies, and organizations that were consulted or contributed to the preparation of this EIR, as well as all the references and sources used in the preparation of the document.

This EIR includes the environmental analysis prepared for the project and appendices as follows:

Appendix A – Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters/Scoping Meeting Comments Appendix B – Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Appendix D – Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix E – Cultural Resources Assessments
Appendix F – Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report

Page 2070 of 3613 ends

December 2015 1. Introduction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-7
Appendix H – Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan Appendix I – Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix J – Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information Appendix K – Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix L – Water Study, Recycled Water Study, and Sewer Study

Page 2071 of 3613 ends

1. Introduction December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-8
This page intentionally blank.

Page 2072 of 3613 ends

Page 2073 of 3613 ends

Page 2074 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION
Richland Developers, the project Applicant, is proposing the development of 292 single-family residences on an approximately 270.9-acre site within an undeveloped hillside area to the south/southwest of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The project site is currently located within the City of Corona sphere of influence in unincorporated Riverside County. In order to facilitate the residential development and the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, the Applicant proposes the annexation of the project site and surrounding parcels totaling approximately 394.8 acres to the City of Corona. Of the approximately 270.9-acre project site, approximately 21.38 acres would be used as right-of-way for the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The City of Corona is currently implementing a Capital Improvement Project for the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension between Green River Road and Trudy Way. This roadway would provide primary access to the project site at “P” Street, “B” Street (aligned with Border Avenue) and Trudy Way.

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project description shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” In addition, Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” As set forth by the CEQA Guidelines, the list of objectives that the project Applicant seeks to achieve for the project is provided below.

Objective 1: Provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods.

Objective 2: Build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use designations consistent with surrounding area.

Objective 3: Facilitate the annexation of the project development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona.

Objective 4: Provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Objective 5: Dedicate land and contribute fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway.

Objective 6: Ensure that all community facilities and services including circulation improvements, drainage facilities, water, reclaimed water and sewer facilities are available to serve the project and meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements prior to, or concurrent with development.

Page 2075 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-2
Objective 7: Provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system.

Objective 8: Provide water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City.

Objective 9: Provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents.

Objective 10: Implement a comprehensive landscape program which provides visual continuity throughout the project area and the natural areas of the Cleveland National Forest.

Objective 11: Help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004).

B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES
The location of the project site is shown in Figure 2-1, Regional and Vicinity Map. As shown in Figure 2-1, the site is located in unincorporated Riverside County, approximately three miles south of State Route 71 (SR-71, Chino Valley Freeway) and SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) and approximately four miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15, Temecula Valley Freeway) along the southwestern boundary of the City of Corona. The 270.9-acre project site is located adjacent to, and southwest of, the proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension.

The project site is vacant; however, one single-family home is located within the larger 394.8-acre annexation area surrounding the site, which is located to the north of the project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 102-320-010). Access to the single-family residence is provided via Green River Road.

Miscellaneous vacated buildings, used in conjunction with a former horse stable enterprise, are located APN within APN 102-320-009, adjacent to and east of the existing residence. Other uses within the surrounding annexation area, but not within the 270.9-acre project site include a nursery (APN 275-080-021) to the north of Browning Circle and four open space parcels owned by the U.S. Wildlife Service in the southeasterly sector of the larger annexation area. Figure 2-2, Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Uses, illustrates the location of the 270.9- acre project site, the annexation area, and surrounding development. As shown in Figure 2-2, the project site is generally bounded on the north and east by single-family residences and on the south and west by the Cleveland National Forest and large privately owned parcels. No commercial land uses are located within the immediately surrounding area.

The nearest development (Tract Map 31955) is located adjacent to and southeast of the project site, south of the Foothill Parkway, with access provided by Trudy Way, Rawley Street, Elker Road, and Corbett Street.

Tract 31955 consists of an approximately 154-lot, residential subdivision within the R1-7.2 zone, which corresponds to low-density single-family and a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot area. The edges of the

Page 2076 of 3613 ends

PROJECT SITE
FIGURE
Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2014. 0 4,000 8,000 Feet
Skyline Heights Project
Regional and Vicinity Map o
2-1
^

PROJECT
SITE
N.A.P.

Page 2077 of 3613 ends

PROJECT SITE
FIGURE
Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2014. 0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Skyline Heights Project
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site o and Surrounding Uses 2-2 ¬«91
N.A.P.

Page 2078 of 3613 ends

December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-5
subdivision are zoned R1-AD/HD, which corresponds to agricultural/hillside uses in a residential zone. The purpose for the latter zone is to maintain common open spaces on the periphery of the residential development.

The area to the south of Tract 31955 is zoned R1-9.6 (single-family residential, with a 9,600-square-foot minimum lot size) and OS (open space) and vacant. This area is accessed by, and to the south of, Skyline Drive.

Existing single-family neighborhoods are also located to the northeast of the project site and Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. These neighborhoods are generally zoned low density residential (R1-7.2, R1- 8.4, and R1-9.6). Large, undeveloped parcels within the OS zone are interspersed among the residential areas. All of the adjacent developed areas are located within the City of Corona.

The Cleveland National Forest is located to the west and south of the annexation area and project site. The National Forest is accessed via Skyline Drive, a graded forest service access road to the south of the project site. This road provides recreational hiking and mountain biking opportunities to residents on a local and regional level.

C. ANNEXATION, ZONING DESIGNATIONS, AND BACKGROUND

1. City of Corona Sphere of Influence
Lands within the City of Corona corporate limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI) are shown in Figure 2-3, City of Corona Sphere of Influence. The City boundary currently comprises 37.6 square miles, while 35.2 square miles in Riverside County are contained within the City’s SOI. The SOI acreages, shown in Figure 2-3, were defined by the City of Corona, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). It represents those areas that are likely to be served by and potentially annexed by the City.

The SOI is defined by three geographically distinct areas, including the West, East, and South Spheres. The West Sphere encompasses three geographic areas: the Prado Basin, Coronita, and the Foothill area. The East Sphere includes the areas of Home Gardens, Eagle Valley East, and El Cerrito. Temescal Canyon makes up the South Sphere. The project site is located within the Foothill area of the City’s West SOI. Since 2002, two areas totaling 579 acres in the west sphere have been annexed to the City that are not mapped in the General Plan.1
Figure 2-4, West Sphere of Influence Existing Land Use, illustrates the designated land uses under the Riverside County General Plan within the City’s West SOI. As shown in Figure 2-4, most of the SOI is designated under the current Riverside County General Plan as Rural Mountainous (RM), which allows for residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per ten acres, with the remaining portion designated as Conservation-Habitat (OS-CH). While the County’s land use designations for the project site and larger annexation area are currently in force, the City’s General Plan also designates the property as 1 City of Corona, General Plan Technical Background Report, March 2004, page 1-4.

Page 2079 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-6
Rural Residential I (0.2-0.5 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space/General (OS/G), respectively, for the same parcels, since these parcels are located within the City’s SOI. Figure 2-5, West Sphere of Influence County of Riverside Zoning, shows the current Riverside County zoning designation for West SOI. As shown in Figure 2-5, most of the SOI is zoned as R-R (Rural Residential), which allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of one-half acre, or a density of up to two dwelling units per acre. A smaller section to the south of the current Trudy Way terminus is zoned A-1-10 (Light Agriculture).

2. Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
The Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was established by the State of California to coordinate logical and timely changes in local government boundaries, discourage urban sprawl and encourage orderly and efficient provision of services, such as water, sewer, fire protection, etc. while agricultural lands are protected. As a state-mandated legislative agency, LAFCO is independent of county government.

Riverside LAFCO is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed jurisdictional boundary changes, including annexations and detachments of territory to and/or from cities and special districts, incorporations of new cities, formations of new special districts, and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of existing districts. In addition, LAFCO must review and approve contractual service agreements, determine spheres of influence for each city and district, and may initiate proposals involving district consolidation, dissolution, establishment of subsidiary districts, mergers, and reorganizations (combinations of these jurisdictional changes).2 Any annexations to the City of Corona must be reviewed and approved by Riverside LAFCO.

The annexation of 394.8 acres located within the City of Corona SOI would be required for the implementation of the proposed project. The area proposed for annexation and a detailed representation of individual land parcels are presented in Figure 2-6, Proposed Annexation Area. As shown in Figure 2-6, the annexation area encompasses the project site (proposed 292-lot subdivision), four open space parcels owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other private properties. Annexation would require pre-zoning that anticipates a change from the County’s R-R zone, corresponding to Rural Residential (0.5-acre minimum lot size or up to two dwelling units per acre), and AG designations of the annexation area to zones consistent with the City of Corona zoning code and proposed residential and open space land uses on the annexation site. 3. Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension
The City of Corona has initiated the extension of Foothill Parkway with an anticipated completion date of 2016.3 The proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension is located within the southwesterly limits of the City of Corona and in the unincorporated area of Riverside County within the City’s sphere of influence. The Foothill Parkway currently extends approximately five miles in south Corona to Trudy Way. Anticipated since the 1980s, the westerly extension would consist of two miles of new four-lane highway from Trudy 2 http://www.lafco.org/opencms/faq.html, accessed June 16, 2014. 3 http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/Public-Works/Foothill-Parkway-Westerly-Extension.aspx, accessed June 16, 2104.

Page 2080 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Sphere of Inuence FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-3
Source: City of Corona, 2002.
0 2 Miles N
Project Site
Project Site

Page 2081 of 3613 ends

West Sphere of Inuence Exis ng Land Use FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-4
Source: City of Corona, 2015. 0 3800 Feet N
Project Site

Page 2082 of 3613 ends

West Sphere of Inuence Exis ng Zoning FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-5
Source: City of Corona, 2015. 0 N
Project Site
3800 Feet

Page 2083 of 3613 ends

Proposed Annexa on Area FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-6
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. N

Page 2084 of 3613 ends

December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-11
Way to Paseo Grande at Green River Road. This would connect Sierra del Oro to south Corona and is expected to provide traffic congestion relief to existing east-west City roads, including Ontario Avenue and 6th Street. Connections to the new section of Foothill Parkway from both Border Avenue and Mangular Avenue, via Chase Drive, are also part of the overall Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project.

The Westerly Extension alignment passes through portions of the Municipal Water District (MWD) Lower Feeder Easement and Mabey Canyon Debris Basin. The adjusted alignment concept was developed with the goal of minimizing impacts to existing development and environmental resources and avoiding encroachments into the Cleveland National Forest. The westerly extension would be a four-lane roadway from its existing terminus approximately 600 feet west of Skyline Drive to Green River Road. At Skyline Drive, the roadway would veer to the west into the unincorporated area of Riverside County and continue in an east/west direction along the City/County boundary. The alignment would then curve to the north and connect to Green River Road in the vicinity of Paseo Grande. The roadway construction would include either two parallel bridge structures or an aboveground arch structure to protect the existing 108-inch Metropolitan Water District (MWD) feeder line approximately 1,000 feet east of Paseo Grande.

Roadway improvements would require right-of-way (R/W) acquisition for the proposed roadway alignment roadway improvements (curb, shoulders, travel lanes, and landscaped medians), slope easement areas, and drainage facilities, as well as temporary construction easements. The roadway project also includes a new signalized intersection at Paseo Grande, and two possible additional signalized intersections at the proposed Border Avenue and Chase Drive connections.

Portions of Foothill Parkway have been recently completed as a four-lane divided roadway from I-15 to Skyline Drive. Green River Road from west of Paseo Grande to Tanglewood Drive will be widened to a fourlane roadway. The remainder of Green River Road to SR-91 is paved as a four-lane roadway. A portion of Green River Road from SR-91 to Palisades Drive is improved as a four-lane roadway and will be ultimately improved to a six-lane roadway in the future in conjunction with improvements at the SR-91/Green River Road interchange. The Green River Road Widening Project involves the widening of Green River from four to six lanes between State Route 91 and Palisades Drive. Construction was scheduled to begin in April 2015 with completion anticipated by December 2015. The project includes paving, slope grading, new curb and gutter, sidewalks, ADA access ramps, modifications to existing storm drains and a new traffic signal at Palisades Drive and signal modifications at Dominguez Ranch Road.4 A sidewalk would be provided on the north side of the roadway throughout the length of the Westerly Extension and a multi-purpose trail will be provided on the south side of the roadway for the majority of the alignment. The latter would provide linkage to existing and future potential trails adjacent to the new roadway.5 The proposed alignment is consistent with the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element roadway functional classification system and is reflected in the City’s General Plan Update (2004). 4 City of Corona. www.InnerCircleCorona.com, “Green River Road Widening Project”, posted March 22, 2015. Available at:
http://www.innercirclecorona.com/green-river-road-widening-project/. Accessed July 2015. 5 City of Corona Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Draft EIR, Executive Summary, pages 2-1 and 2-2, August 2008.

Page 2085 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-12
D. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND ZONING
The project site is distinguished by two topographic regions divided by Mabey Canyon. The area north of Mabey Canyon consists of approximately 39 acres and is bounded on the west by Cleveland National Forest, on the northeast by the proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, and on the south by Mabey Canyon.

The portion of the project site south of Mabey Canyon consists of approximately 232 acres and is situated near the mouths of Mabey, Tin Mine and Kroonen Canyons. At the south edge this area connects to the south terminus of Trudy Way near existing Tract 31955. An unimproved road leading from Mabey Canyon provides access to the southerly area. Vehicular access however, is limited, owing to the steep topography, which generally increases in elevation from the northeast to the southwest, and lack of maintenance of the road. Elevations over the site range from approximately 945 feet to 1,730 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

The 270.9-acre project site is in an almost natural, undisturbed state. Steep topography with a thin soil mantle has precluded agricultural development common elsewhere in the general area. Very dense chaparral punctuated by sporadic stands of scrub oak covers most slopes. Unimproved roads from Mabey Canyon Road and Mangular Avenue provide access to this area. However, vehicular access is limited because of steep topography and other factors as noted above. Skyline Drive, which abuts the south edge of the annexation area, provides recreational access to the Cleveland National Forest.

The 394.8-acre annexation area, currently within unincorporated Riverside County, is mostly designated as Rural Mountainous (single-family residential), with a smaller portion designated as Conservation Habitat (OS-CH), both Riverside County General Plan designations. However, of this total, an approximately 1.3-acre parcel in the vicinity of Skyline Drive is zoned AG (agriculture), also a Riverside County designation. All of the parcels contained within the 270.9-acre project site are currently zoned Rural Residential (Riverside County).

E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves the approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544 for the development of 292 single-family homes. In order to facilitate the development of the residential subdivision, an annexation of the project site and surrounding annexation area is required. As such, the primary facets of the project are the following:

Annexation of 394.8 acres from unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s SOI to the City of Corona.

General Plan Amendment to Corona’s General Plan Sphere of Influence Land Use Plan (West Sphere) to amend 394.8 acres from Rural Residential 1 (0.2 – 0.5 dwelling units/acre) to Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units/acre) on 357.14 acres and Open Space on 37.61 acres.

Application to rezone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-

7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square-foot minimum lot size located in the city’s SOI (westerly sphere) to facilitate the annexation of property into the City of Corona.

Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544. Tentative Tract Map 36544 is illustrated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544. Tentative Tract 36544 includes numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets, and utilities. As

Page 2086 of 3613 ends

Tenta ve Tract Map 36544 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-7
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. N

Page 2087 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-14
This page intentionally blank.

Page 2088 of 3613 ends

December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-15
shown in Figure 2-7, 45 lots would be developed to the north of Mabey Canyon and 247 lots would be developed to the south of Mabey Canyon. The residential development would occur in three phases. Phase I would consist of 157 homes to be located in the central and south sectors of the site, to the south of Mabey Canyon and along the future Trudy Way alignment. Phase II would consist of 90 homes to be constructed in the central sector of the site, south of Mabey Canyon and west of the Trudy Way alignment. Phase III would consist of 45 homes to be constructed in the north sector of the project site, north of Mabey Canyon. It is anticipated that the three phases would be completed by 2020.

1. Access and Roadways
Vehicle access to the project would be from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which would be constructed along the northeast side of the site. Access to the south edge of the project site would be via Trudy Way, which currently serves Subdivision Tract 31955. The central access point from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be at “P” Street and access to the northerly sector would be via “B” Street, which would align with Border Avenue. The access points along Trudy Way and “B” Street will be gated. The alignment of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would require the dedication of approximately 21.38 acres from the 270.9-acre project site. “P” Street would be developed to meet “local collector,” 88-foot-wide standards. The 88-foot-wide “local collector” standards require a 16-foot-wide raised, landscaped median; two 24-foot-wide, two-lane roadways; five-foot-wide sidewalks; and seven-foot landscaped parkways. Trudy Way and “B” Street would be developed to meet “local collector,” 68-foot-wide standards. These “local collector” standards require a 44-foot-wide, four-lane roadway, five-foot-wide sidewalks, and seven-foot-wide landscaped parkways.

Interior streets would be developed to meet “local street,” 60-foot-wide or 56-foot-wide standards. “Local street” 60-foot-wide standards require four-foot-wide sidewalks and eight-foot-wide landscaped parkways. “Local street” 56-foot-wide standards require four-foot-wide sidewalks and six-foot-wide landscaped parkways.

2. Open Space and Landscaping
As previously shown in Figure 2-6, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services parcels within the annexation area and the open space parcel at the south edge of the annexation area would be maintained as permanent open space. This would allow permanent access to Skyline Drive and trails within the Cleveland National Forest.

Open space would also be provided within the project site (Tentative Tract 36544) in the form of landscaped slopes, landscaped and native open space areas, and landscaped detention basins. Figure 2-8, Landscape Plan – Northerly Portion of Skyline Heights, and Figure 2-9, Landscape Plan – Southerly Portion of Skyline Heights, illustrate proposed landscaping for slopes, open space areas, and detention basins. As shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, plantings on commonly-owned (i.e., under Homeowners’ Association [HOA] ownership) and private slopes would be chosen from “Defensible Space Landscaping Plant Palette for Fuel Modification in Riverside County” guidelines and all trees and shrubs would be California Department of Water Resources “Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species” (WUCOLS) low water use. Trees would be required to be provided in minimum 15-gallon planter boxes for each 400 square feet of slope, shrubs would be two shrubs for each 64 square feet of slope, with sixty percent one-gallon and forty percent five-gallon. Approved trees and shrubs for common and private slopes are listed on Figures 2-8 and 2-9.

Page 2089 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-16
Irrigation would consist of point source drip or in-line drip irrigation. Overhead spray irrigation would not be permitted. Groundcovers would consist of three inches of “gorilla hair” mulch that would be spread evenly over all slope areas.

Twenty-four-inch boxed trees would be planted at a rate of one per lot or at 35 feet on center along street frontages. Approved tree species include ginko biloba (maidenhair tree), lagerstroemia indica (Crape myrtle tree), platanus acerifoliaI (London planetree), quercus agrifolia (coast live oak tree), and rhus lancea (Karee tree). Common open space recreation areas would be planted with WUCOLS low-water plants, as shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9. Areas containing native open space would not be altered from existing conditions.

Detention basin areas would be planted with trees and shrubs to screen views of the basin at the perimeter.

The basin floor would be hydroseeded with an appropriate native mix to be determined. Approved trees and shrubs are listed on Figures 2-8 and 2-9. Figure 2-10, Open Space Concept Plan, illustrates a typical layout for common slopes and open space areas.

As shown in Figure 2-10, five-foot walkways would enhance access to open space areas. Where views are available, the view corridor would be retained and an overlook area with seating would be provided. Open space would combine plant and tree species and provide for turf areas to enhance use and access. However, through the City’s design review process on the landscape plans, the turf areas may be subject to removal depending on the adoption of current ordinances pertaining to water conservation.

Two shrubs are required for each sixty-four feet of slope area. For groundcovers, rooted cuttings shall be planted at 12 inches on center minimum and 24 inches on center maximum, depending on the variety of groundcover. Smaller trees and shrubs shall be planted at the top of the slope and larger trees and shrubs are to be planted further downslope to preserve views and lines of sight. Trees are to be planted near the property line to further frame the view.

3. Grading
The grading operation entails cut and fill from the existing grades to the proposed ultimate roadway and pad grades within the project development within a single phase. The anticipated maximum cut and fill depths are 160 feet and 145 feet, respectively. The estimated earthwork volume to be moved is approximately 5,000,000 cubic yards. The site is designed to balance the cut and fill within the project site with no import or export of material.

4. Infrastructure
The proposed project would implement a number of infrastructure improvements that are necessary for operation of the proposed uses, which include new water distribution and storage facilities, wastewater conveyance facilities, and stormwater drainage and detention facilities.

As relates to water facilities, the project would construct on- and off-site water pipelines ranging in size from 8 to 12 inches in diameter, upgrade the existing on-site Mabey Canyon Booster Pump Station to 1,340 gallons

Page 2090 of 3613 ends

FIGURE Landscape Plan Northerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 2-8
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N

Page 2091 of 3613 ends

FIGURE Landscape Plan Northerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 2-9
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N

Page 2092 of 3613 ends

Open Space Concept Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-10
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014.

Page 2093 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-20
This page intentionally blank.

Page 2094 of 3613 ends

December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-21
per minute (gpm) capacity, as well as construct a new on-site Booster Pump Station with 500 gpm capacity, a new on-site 0.6-million-gallon above-ground water reservoir, and install a new on-site zone valve in “B” Street. In addition, new water infrastructure is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements Project of which is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would require the following City of Corona Capital Improvements/Water Infrastructure to be constructed prior to the build-out condition:

Construction of the new 16-inch Zone 5 waterline in Foothill Parkway from Trudy Way to the Sierra Bella Development and the 12-inch inter-tie in Mabey Canyon Road to the existing Zone 5B water system (Mabey Canyon Booster System) as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements;
Construction of the new 16-inch Zone 4 waterline in Trudy Way from Foothill Parkway to the proposed Zone 4 Reservoir site within the proposed project located at the southeastern corner of the project site; and
Construction of a new 2.5 mg Zone 4 Reservoir and related appurtenances within the project site.

In the event that these improvements are not already in place and operational prior to completion of the proposed project, any improvements necessary to serve the project would be the sole responsibility of the project Applicant.

With regard to wastewater infrastructure, the project would require the following improvements:

Construction of 8-inch on-site gravity sewer lines within the proposed project; Construction of off-site 8-inch gravity sewer lines from on-site sewer system to existing sewer system connection points; and
Potential mitigation of downstream trunk sewer impacts as a result of the sewer contributions from the proposed project. The existing sewer system impacts are approximately 503 linear feet (“LF”) of 8-inch pipe, 503 LF of 8-inch pipe, 3,248 LF of 10-inch pipe, and 228 LF of 12-inch pipe.

The project would also include new on-site stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with the most recent City of Corona and Riverside County and Water Conservation District design requirements. New off-site storm drain pipes would also be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, which would also serve the proposed project. In addition, the project would install a system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping so that off-site flows would by-pass the project site and would not be co-mingled with development runoff which would be treated at the designated Best Management Practice (“BMP”) treatment areas. The site is divided into five tributary areas, or Drainage Management Areas (“DMAs”), which are designated as Basins A, B, C, D, and E.

The Applicant will install biotreatment BMPs (i.e., extended detention basins) within each DMA as approved by the City Department of Public Works.

Page 2095 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-22
F. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

1. Construction Phasing
As described above, the project would be constructed in three phases. It is anticipated that these development phases would be completed by 2020. It is also anticipated that the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be completed prior to the initiation of construction. Therefore, if the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project were not completed, the proposed project would not be implemented.

2. Truck Routes
Truck routes to and from the construction site would take access at “B” Street and “P” Street to the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The truck route leading to the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) would be via the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension to Green River Road, and along Green River Road approximately three miles to the Green River Road/SR-91 interchange. Truck access to the site from SR-91 would follow this route in reverse. The truck route to I-15 would be via the Foothill Parkway to the east, approximately 1.7 miles to Main Street, north on Main Street approximately 0.5-mile to Magnolia Avenue, north on Magnolia Avenue approximately 1.9 miles to I-15 for a total of approximately four miles. Truck access to the site from I-15 would follow this route in reverse. Final truck route shall be determined and approved by the City Engineer.

3. Construction Staging and Parking Areas
All construction staging, material and equipment storage, and construction worker parking would occur within the project site boundaries. No off-site construction-related staging, storage, or parking would be permitted.

4. Construction Management Plan
In order to reduce the potential impact of construction-related traffic, the Applicant would implement a Construction Management Plan to minimize traffic impacts upon the local circulation system in the area. The Construction Management Plan would be developed in coordination with, and subject to approval from, the City of Corona Traffic Engineer.

G. NECESSARY APPROVALS
Approvals required for implementation of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. City of Corona
City Council approval of project and certification of Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment 13-003 (GPA13-003) to amend Corona’s General Plan Sphere of Influence Land Use Plan (westerly sphere) to amend 394.8 acres from Rural Residential I (0.2 - 0.5 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) on 357.14 acres and Open Space on 37.61 acres.

Page 2096 of 3613 ends

December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-23
Change of zone 13-002 (CZ13 002) to rezone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square-foot minimum lot size) located in the City’s SOI (westerly sphere) to facilitate the annexation of property into the City of Corona.

Annexation 117 to annex 394.8 acres from unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s SOI to the City of Corona.

Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544 (TTM 36544) to provide for the subdivision of 270.9 acres into 292 single family residential lots, including numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets and utilities in the R-1-7.2 zone being proposed by CZ13-002.

Approval of a Radio Study (for Corona Police Department communications), as well as haul route, demolition, grading, and building permits. 2. Riverside LAFCO Review and approval of the annexation of 394.8 acres located within the City of Corona SOI from unincorporated Riverside County to the City of Corona

3. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Construction and operation permits pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation II

4. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

5. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Annexation of the project site into the Metropolitan service area

6. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
General Construction Stormwater Permit

7. Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts to jurisdictional features regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW.

Page 2097 of 3613 ends

2. Project Description December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-24
This page intentionally blank.

Page 2098 of 3613 ends

Page 2099 of 3613 ends

Page 2100 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-1

3. BASIS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) analyze cumulative impacts. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a) states that an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. However, an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.

Furthermore, when the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR must briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency must identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency's conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) indicates that the analysis of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great a level of detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. Instead, the discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the particular impacts to which the other related projects contribute to cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed project, rather than those attributes of the other related projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact in conjunction with the proposed project. As indicated above, "cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts."1 A project has "cumulatively considerable" impacts when its incremental effects "are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”2
For an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow an EIR to determine cumulative impacts and reasonably foreseeable growth based on either of the following methods:3 A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental planning document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. 1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15355 2 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b). 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A) and (B)

Page 2101 of 3613 ends

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-2
For the purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis for the proposed project, the City has opted to use both the list approach and the growth projections approach, as applicable, for evaluating cumulative effects. The list of “related projects” was developed by the City by reviewing the most current list of approved projects in the City’s project status database. Projects identified within the general area of the project site were confirmed by City staff to be current or probable future developments with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed project given their proximity and anticipated development intensity. The City identified 22 related projects, which are summarized below in Table 3-1, Related Projects List, while the locations of the related projects are shown in Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map. Although the projects listed below serve as the primary bases for evaluation of cumulative impacts, the approach to these analyses vary for certain environmental issues. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(3), the City established a general geographic scope of the area affected by the potential cumulative effects based on the potential for the proposed project and related projects to contribute impacts within a particular distance from the project site, jurisdiction, viewshed, watershed, air basin, service area, or other geography, as applicable. The specific geographic scope for each environmental issue analyzed in this EIR is provided below.

The scope for cumulative analysis of impacts related to aesthetics and views is the viewshed surrounding the project site, as only those projects that can be viewed in the context of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative visual effects.

The geographic scope of cumulative effects for air quality and global climate change is the South Coast Air Basin, since all regional air emissions from development within the area occur within the Basin.

The geographic scope of cumulative effects for agriculture and forestry resources is the State of California, which encompasses the entirety of existing farmland and forestry resources within the State. The cumulative analysis of effects on biological resources considers species and habitats within a specific geographic area in which one would expect to find such resources, in this case the southwestern portion of Riverside County.

The geographic scope for archaeological and paleontological resources is the southern California region, based on the historic extent of Native American settlements and the distribution of fossil- bearing geologic formations in the region.

Cumulative impacts on historic resources are evaluated in the context of local, State, and national regulations, since historic resources can be considered significant at each of these levels; however, cumulative impacts are generally evaluated in terms of whether or not impacts would contribute directly or indirectly to cumulatively significant effects on resources eligible for listing on the California or National registers.

Geology and soils effects typically localized cumulative effects are evaluated based on the potential for the project to pose risks to people or structures to adjacent land uses as the result of on-site conditions.

Page 2102 of 3613 ends

December 2015 3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-3
Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in the context of the local vicinity of the project site, which for the proposed project includes the southwest area of the City of Corona.

Cumulative effects related to hydrology and water quality are limited to the watershed within which a project is located, and therefore the geographic scope for cumulative analysis is the Santa Ana River watershed.

Land use and planning impacts generally affect the jurisdiction in which projects are located, and therefore the geographic context for cumulative analysis is the City of Corona, County of Riverside, and the southern California region (Southern California Association of Governments jurisdiction).

Noise effects are by nature localized, and therefore potential cumulative noise impacts are analyzed for those identified related projects in close enough proximity to the project site to increase ambient noise levels on-site or in the immediate project vicinity.

The cumulative analysis context for population and housing impacts relate to the geographies identified in regional growth management plans (such as the 2012-2035 SCAG RTP/SCS), which include the City of Corona, County of Riverside, and entire SCAG Region.

The geographic scope for cumulative effects on public services and utilities (including police, fire, schools, parks/recreation, libraries, water, wastewater, and solid waste) are limited to each respective service area.

The geographic context for cumulative traffic and circulation impacts is the area within which related projects could contribute 50 or more peak hour trips to the street network serving the project site.

In addition to the traffic associated with the identified related projects, the cumulative traffic analysis also includes an overall growth factor of one percent (1%) per year to account for smaller projects and other ambient growth in the project area.

Cumulative analysis for each environmental issue is provided in the respective environmental subsections in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR.

Page 2103 of 3613 ends

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-4
Table 3-1
Related Projects List
Related
Project
No. Project Name Location Description
1 Foremost Communities
(TTM 36541)
South of Calle Del Oro
(Sierra Bella)
237 single family lots
322 acres
2 MBK Homes and Turner
Development
(TTM 35590, PP07-007)
Southwest corner of Serfas Club
and Palisades
Mixed use:
288 multi-family units

12.56 acres
9 light industrial buildings (177,822 s.f.)

12.25 acres
3 Cesar Chavez School
Expansion
(DPR11-006)
West side of Paseo Grande south
of West Sixth Street
93,684 s.f. middle school addition to
existing elementary school
4 Knowleton Communities
(TTM 33135)
South of Skyline Drive, south of
Foothill Parkway, west of Lincoln
63 single family lots
60 acres
5 Knowleton Communities
(PM 36250, PP09-004)
Southwest corner of Ontario and
Buena Vista
2 lots for two commercial buildings
totaling 18,400 s.f.
6 Rancho De Paseo Valencia
(TTM 34760, Annex 110,
SPA08-005 EIR)
South and west of Malaga Street,
south of Upper Drive, west of
Main Street
34 single family estate lots
64 acres
7 DJJ Development
(TTM 32386)
Southerly terminus of Main
Street, south of Fletcher Drive
49 single family lots
75 acres
8 City of Corona Successor
Agency/West Coast
Development
(TTM 34488, PP06-009)
Southeast corner of Harrington
Street and Lincoln Avenue
194 multi-family units

7.3 acres
9 Corona North Main, LLC
Phase II
(PP12-005)
West side of North Main Street at
Blaine Street
Mixed Use Development
453 multi-family units
72,100 s.f. commercial
15 acres
10 Pecuniary Capital, LLC
(TTM 35851, CUP10-017) North of Corona Avenue, west of
I-15 Freeway
60 townhome units (multi-family)

3.5 acres
11 Mulligan-Allen &
Associates
(PM 35661, PP08-001)
Southeast corner of Collett and
Promenade Avenue in northeast
Corona
442 multi-family units

17.2 acres
12 Sherborn, LLC
(PM 33959) South of Magnolia Avenue, west
of Sherborn Street
29 industrial lots
76 acres
13 Nova Homes
(TTM 36533) Laurel Canyon, northeast of Old
Temescal
103 single family lots
61 acres
14 Cornerstone Enterprises
(PM 36311, PP10-001,
CUP10-003, 004; 005)
West of I-15, north of Foothill
Parkway/El Cerrito Road
Commercial center:

Restaurant total 17,200
Retail in-line 24,000
Service station 3,000
Hotel 119 rooms, 38670 s.f.

9.8 acres

Page 2104 of 3613 ends

December 2015 3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Related Projects List
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-5
Related
Project
No. Project Name Location Description
15 Tri-Pointe Homes
(TTM 36355, CUP14-001)
North of Foothill Parkway, west
of I-15
146 Single Family Condos

21.7 acres
16 Gateway Business Park
Crossings
(PM 29503R, PP08-008)
East of I-15; north of Cajalco
Road at Tom Barnes Way
44 commercial and industrial lots;
216,400 s.f.
28 acres
17 SE Corporation
Lakeshore Plaza
(PM 34890, PP06-006)
West side of I-15, east of
Temescal Canyon
Four lots for three office buildings (one
constructed), two remain at 289,613 s.f.
18 Meridian Dos Lagos, LP
(PM 34851, PP06-011)
East of Temescal Canyon,
Planning Area 6 of Dos Lagos
7 lot condo map with 7 office buildings
totaling 35,931 s.f.

3.6 acres
19 Fu Bang Group
(PM 33151, PP04-018)
Southwest corner of Temescal
Canyon and Blue Springs 92 live-work units
20 Rexco Development
(PP13-006)
East side of Temescal Canyon
Road at Cabot Drive
354 Multi-Family units

20.39 acres
21 Rexco Development North side of Sampson Avenue,
East of Anselmo Three Industrial Buildings – 420,457 s.f. 22 Arrantine Hills Specific
Plan (SP09-001)
West Side of I-15, South of Eagle
Glen Parkway
Master Planned Community:
1,170 residential units
129.2 acres Commercial
38 acres Mixed Use Commercial/
Residential 21.1 acres – 451 units
Commercial/industrial – 18.6 acres
23 North Main Street District Southwest corner of N. Main Street and River Road Condominiums 404 DU
24 Berzansky/PB
Development
East side of E. Grand Boulevard
north of 3rd Street Medical Office Buildings 39,200 SF
25 Westliving East of California,
500 feet south of Taber
2-story, 92,245 s.f. (112 units) assisted
living/memory care
26 Vulcan Materials Sherborn Street Existing surface mine; expansion by 100 acres; extension of permit
27 Sanre Corporation California Avenue (off Carbide) 36,658 s.f. industrial, 3 acres 28 Trammell Crow 1451 Magnolia, south of Sixth
Street
3 industrial buildings, 531,904 s.f.;

26.34 acres
29 Griffco Land LLC Blue Springs Drive & Temescal
Canyon Road 125 Multi-Family units on 5.23 acres
30 Citrus Circle Apartments Buena Vista & 91 Freeway 42 affordable units 31 Houman/Patel Southeast corner of Main and
Eighth Streets 17,400 s.f. 2-story office building
32 ASTA/Strata Northwest corner of Main Street
and Parkridge Avenue 45 townhomes on 3.8 acres
Sources: City of Corona., 2014.

Page 2105 of 3613 ends

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-6
This page is intentionally blank.

Page 2106 of 3613 ends

7 6
5 8
4 3
2 1
9 32
23 30
31 24
28 26
27 25
29 22
21 19
18 17
20 16
1514
13 12
11 10
Project Boundary
Related Projects
FIGURE
Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2015. 0 1 2 Miles Skyline Heights Project
Related Projects Map
3-1
N.A.P.

Page 2107 of 3613 ends

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-8
This page is intentionally blank.

Page 2108 of 3613 ends

Page 2109 of 3613 ends

Page 2110 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. AESTHETICS

INTRODUCTION
This section addresses potential impacts that could result from the proposed project with regard to visual quality, views, shade/shadow, and light and glare. The analysis presented in this section is based on a review of applicable plans and regulations, including the City of Corona General Plan, and visual simulations prepared by BMLA Landscape Architecture, as well as site reconnaissance and analysis conducted by PCR staff.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Regional Setting
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Riverside County along the southwestern boundary of the City of Corona. The regional setting is comprised of a mix of natural and highly developed landscapes.

Corona is located at the base and just east of the Chino Hills and Santa Ana Mountains that provide a geological border and separate Corona from the greater Orange County metropolitan area, to the west. The Santa Ana Mountains are largely within the Cleveland National Forest, which borders Corona’s southwestern edge. The San Gabriel Mountains, within the Angeles National Forest, and San Bernardino Mountains, within the San Bernardino National Forest, provide a geological border to the north and separate the region from the Mojave Desert to the north. Cities in the region are interconnected along Interstates (I)10, 15, and 215 and State Routes (SR) 60, 71, 91, and 210 and often lack gaps of open space land or distinct separation between different cities such as Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Riverside, Upland, San Bernardino, and Redlands. These cities do not have a distinct edge and blend together by the continuation of extensive development. South of SR-91 and between I-15 and I-215, the region is still developed, but not as densely as areas north of SR-91, and wider open areas of open space exist between developed areas.

Open space areas generally exist in the form of the surrounding hills and mountains, national forests, drainage ways, and local parks. Water features in the region include the Santa Ana River; Chino, Mill, and Cucamonga Creeks; Temescal Wash; Lake Mathews; and the Prado Flood Control Basin. Views within the region vary from being limited to the foreground by development, infrastructure, and vegetation to having more open views and vistas from elevated roadways and hillsides and over undeveloped open space lands.

Within Corona, prominent scenic vistas include views of the Prado Basin from Sierra del Oro that encompass the basin on the south and canyon areas on the west; views of the Santa Ana Mountains from the I-15/SR-91 Freeway interchange; southern view of the foothills from major north-south streets south of Ontario Avenue; views from the higher elevations south of Ontario Avenue, which encompass panoramic views to the north

Page 2111 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-2
and San Gabriel Mountains; and Grand Boulevard, including the distinct circle of palm trees visible from a variety of locations.1
(2) Local Setting
The project site is located within an undeveloped hillside area within the City of Corona sphere of influence in unincorporated Riverside County. The site is in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and is located to the south/southwest of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The project site is generally vacant. The site has steep topography with very dense chaparral punctuated by sporadic stands of scrub oak covering most of the slopes. Elevations over the site range from approximately 945 feet to 1,730 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

More specifically, the site consists of two areas that are separated by Mabey Canyon. The area to the north of Mabey Canyon is in an almost natural state and characterized by steep topography with steep-sided northeast trending ridges. The area has V-shaped canyons and narrow, spine-like ridges. There are three canyons within this portion of the site that drain northwesterly into Wardlow Canyon and into Mabey Canyon to the south. There is currently limited vehicular access to the area on unimproved roads from Mabey Canyon Road and Mangular Avenue. A single-family home is located to the north of the project site, but within the larger annexation area surrounding the site, with access provided via Green River Road.

Miscellaneous vacated buildings, used in conjunction with a former horse stable enterprise, are located adjacent to and east of the existing residence. The portion of the site that is located south of Mabey Canyon is also characterized by steep topography with northwest trending ridges and V-shaped canyons. The site and the surrounding area generally reflect a suburban, rural residential, and sloping native hillside landscape. The surrounding areas to the north and east of the site are developed with single-family residences. Skyline Drive, a graded forest service access road to the south of the project site, provides recreational access to the Cleveland National Forest, which is located to the south and west of the site along with large privately owned parcels. Skyline Drive provides recreational hiking and mountain biking opportunities to residents on a local and regional level. Figure 4.A-1 and Figure 4.A-2, Existing Site Photos, below, illustrate existing views of and across the project site from surrounding locations. As shown in Figures 4.A-1 and 4.A-2, the project site is generally undeveloped and characterized by varied topography with steep slopes and native vegetation, though a limited number of structures and related improvements (e.g., roads, water tanks, drainage infrastructure, etc.) are present on the property. Views of scenic resources to the north and south, including the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana Mountains, are available from the higher elevations throughout the project site, and from nearby public trails, including the Skyline Drive Trail located immediately off-site to the south. Although some disturbance has occurred on the project site, the majority of the site is comprised of native vegetation and in the context of the surrounding open space and forest areas to the south and west, the visual quality of the site is considered good. Chase Drive from Mangular Avenue to State Street, is designated as a City Scenic Highway in the City’s General Plan.

Existing views from Chase Drive looking westward are of the Santa Ana Mountains. Although direct views of the project site from Chase Drive are generally limited and obscured by existing topography, vegetation, and urban development, some clear views of ridgelines within the southern portion of the project site are visible along the roadway to the southwest.
1 City of Corona, Corona General Plan, Adopted March 2004.

Page 2112 of 3613 ends

Exis ng Site Photographs FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-1
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Photograph 1: View of the southern portion of the project site toward the northeast from the Skyline Drive Trail.

Photograph 2: View across the project site towards the north from the Skyline Drive Trail.

Photograph 3: View of the central portion of the project site towards the west-southwest from Clearview Circle.

Photograph 4: View of the northern portion of the project site towards the west-southwest from Condor Circle.

Page 2113 of 3613 ends

Exis ng Site Photographs FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-2
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Photograph 5: View of the northern portion of the
project site towards the west-southwest from Mabey
Canyon Detention Basin.

Photograph 6: View of the central portion of the project site towards the west from Mabey Canyon.

Photograph 7: View of the central portion of the project site towards the southwest from Mabey Canyon.

Photograph 8: View of the central portion of the project site towards the northeast from Mabey Canyon.

Page 2114 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-5
The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be completed prior to the initiation of construction of the proposed project. The westerly extension would be a four-lane roadway from its existing terminus south of the site approximately 600 feet west of Skyline Drive to Green River Road. At Skyline Drive, the roadway would veer to the west into the unincorporated area of Riverside County and continue in an east/west direction along the City/County boundary. The alignment would then curve to the north and connect to Green River Road in the vicinity of Paseo Grande. The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be completed prior to implementation of the proposed project and therefore is considered in the Existing Conditions discussion.
(a) Existing Viewer Groups, Viewer Responses, and Views (i) Residents
As discussed earlier, existing residential development is located to the north and east of the site. The nearby residents are the primary viewers that have direct and extended views of the project site, and are likely to have moderately high sensitivity to visual changes at the project site due to extended viewing times and a higher sense of ownership of views combined with familiarity with a landscape. Some direct long-distance views of the project site are available from Chase Drive (as noted above) and surrounding neighborhoods to the south, and views of the project site interior are available from neighborhoods to the north and south of Mabey Canyon. However, based on the existing topography of the area, and the relative elevations of existing development relative to the project site, direct views of the property from surrounding residential areas are generally limited from adjacent neighborhoods, as shown in Figures 4.A-1 and 4.A-2 above. (ii) Automobile Roadway Users
Upon completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, views from roads and highways by automobile users would be of moderate duration because while drivers may have some time to take in their surroundings, they are generally more focused on the surrounding traffic, road signs, and their immediate surroundings within the automobile. The passing developed landscape becomes familiar to these viewers and their attention is typically not focused on the passing views. Therefore, automobile roadway users generally have low visual sensitivity to their surroundings. (iii) Recreationists
Recreationists in the project area include people going to Cleveland National Forest, including those accessing the forest area via the Skyline Drive Trail. In addition, upon completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, recreationists could include cyclists, pedestrians, runners, and joggers. Recreationists using national forests and local roadways and sidewalks are more likely to regard the natural and built surroundings as a holistic visual experience. However, they are likely to have high visual sensitivity due to the undeveloped nature of the project area.
(3) Light and Glare
The project site is undeveloped; therefore, it does not contribute to the existing ambient light and glare in the vicinity. Artificial light sources occur from existing residences to the north and east of the site, and include interior and exterior lighting for security/safety, architectural highlighting, and landscape lighting. The Cleveland National Forest is located south and west of the site and as such there are no sources of light or glare. The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension is planned and approximately 21.38 acres on the eastern

Page 2115 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-6
portion of the project site would be used as right-of-way for the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension is anticipated to be completed by 2016, prior to the commencement of construction of the proposed project. As a result of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, automobile headlights, streetlights and stoplights along the Westerly Extension would contribute to the overall future ambient lighting levels in the vicinity. b. Regulatory Framework
(1) State
(a) California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. According to Caltrans, I15 and SR-91 are eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways, but are not officially designated.2 There
are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the proposed project. (2) Local
(a) City of Corona General Plan
The Community Design Chapter of the City of Corona General Plan provides guidance for the design character of Corona’s public streetscapes, entries, and activity places. It expands upon and complements the design and development guidelines defined for the City’s residential neighborhoods and commercial, industrial, and mixed-use districts by the Land Use Element. In addition, the City’s General Plan Environmental Resources Element contains a Visual Resources component. The Visual Resources component identifies and contains goals and policies to preserve significant hillsides, valleylands, floodplains, and other aesthetic view corridors, or viewsheds.

As shown in Figure 4.4-2 (Scenic Highways) of the General Plan Technical Background Report, Citydesignated scenic highways include:

Grand Boulevard, which provides views of the City’s historic core, particularly the large estates established on the irregularly shaped parcels along the edge of the circle, as well as associated landscaping and mature street vegetation;
Main Street, from Third Street to the southern terminus, which also provides views of the historic core of the City, as well as views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and south, and the low foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east;
Ontario Avenue, from Mangular Avenue to State Street, which provides views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the low foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east; Chase Drive, from Mangular Avenue to State Street, which also provides views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the low foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east; and 2 Caltrans, California Scenic Highway Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm Accessed May 6, 2013.

Page 2116 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-7
Magnolia Avenue, from Garretson and Ontario Avenues to Rimpau Avenue, which also provides views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest, as well as long-distance views of the San Bernardino Mountain foothills to the east. The City-designated scenic highways identified above are not in the vicinity of the proposed project site. However, Chase Drive and Mangular Avenue are located approximately ¼ mile to the east of the site.

With regard to scenic views, the wide-open vistas in the City of Corona are associated with natural features that dominate visual image of the City. Significant vistas include the Prado Basin views from Sierra del Oro, the Santa Ana Mountains from the I-15/SR-91 Freeway interchange; the southern view of the foothills from major north-south streets south of Ontario Avenue; the views from the higher elevations south of Ontario Avenue; and Grand Boulevard. The Visual Resources component identifies Eagle Glen, which is located on the east side of the City, as providing one of the best views. The General Plan identifies Palisades Drive/Green River Road south of the Highway 71/SR-91 interchange as another scenic road in the City.

Consistency of the proposed project with applicable General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and visual resources is discussed below in Table 4.A-1. (b) Corona Municipal Code – Title 17 The intent of Title 17, Zoning, of the City of Corona Municipal Code (CMC) is to protect public health, safety and the general welfare of residents and visitors in the City. Several sections of the CMC, Title 17, are applicable to the project including Chapter 17.59, Hillside District, and Chapter 17.70, Landscaping.

Chapter 17.59 applies since the project site is located within the area shown on Figure 4.5-1 (Slope Analysis) of the General Plan Technical Background Report as having greater than 25 percent slopes. The Hillside District chapter provides development regulations to preserve significant visual resources from potential loss or disruption. The chapter contains the following policies:
(A) Encourage development clustering which contributes to the provision of view corridors; (B) Encourage development design that reflects the distinct environmental and topographical characteristics of the land;
(C) Encourage the clustering of development on the most gently sloping portions of the site; (D) Encourage innovative architectural, landscaping, circulation and site design; (E) Discourage mass grading of large pads and excessive terracing except where soils stability dictates grading and recompaction for public safety;
(F)Provide for safe circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and within hillside areas and to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles necessary to serve hillside areas; and (G) Encourage design and building practices to assure maximum safety from wildfire hazard.

Page 2117 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-8
CMC Chapter 17.70, Landscaping, provides minimum landscaping requirements and regulations regarding the location and heights of walls, fences and hedges. Landscape requirements include the installation of water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems.

CMC Section 17.84.070 requires that all areas of exterior lighting shall be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses and open space.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
Since evaluating visual impacts is inherently subjective, federal and professional standards of visual assessment methodology have been used to determine potential impacts on aesthetic values of the project area. Identifying the project area’s visual resources and conditions involved the three following steps:

1. Objective identification of the visual features (visual resources) of the landscape;

2. Assessment of the character and quality of those resources relative to overall regional visual character; and

3. Determination of the importance to people, or sensitivity, of views of visual resources in the landscape;
The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area.3Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area.4 Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a function of the number of viewers, number of views seen, distance of the viewers, and viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the public’s concern for a particular viewshed. These terms and criteria are described in detail below.
(1) Visual Character
Natural and artificial landscape features contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Visual character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Urban features include those associated with development, including roads, utilities, structures, earthworks, and the results of other human activities. The perception of visual character can vary significantly seasonally, even hourly, as weather, light, shadow, and elements that compose the viewshed change. The basic components used to describe visual character for most visual assessments are the elements of form, line, 3 Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988. 4
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual Resource Management Program(Stock No. 024-001-00116-6.) Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Page 2118 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-9
color, and texture of the landscape features.5,6 The appearance of the landscape is described in terms of the dominance of each of these components.
(2) Visual Quality
Visual quality is evaluated using the approach to visual analysis adopted by Federal Highway Administration employing the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity which are described below.7 8 Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns.

Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, and in natural settings.

Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.

Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity, as modified by its visual sensitivity. High-quality views are highly vivid, relatively intact, and exhibit a high degree of visual unity. Low-quality views lack vividness, are not visually intact, and possess a low degree of visual unity. (3) Visual Exposure and Sensitivity
The measure of the quality of a view is tempered by the overall sensitivity of the viewer. Viewer sensitivity or concern is based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of viewers to the visual resource, elevation of viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, number of viewers, and type and expectations of individuals and viewer groups.

The importance of a view is related in part to the position of the viewer to the resource; therefore, visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements depend on their placement within the viewshed. A viewshed is defined as all of the surface area visible from a particular location (e.g., an overlook) or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail).9 To identify the importance of views of a resource, a viewshed is broken into distance zones of foreground, middle ground, and background. Generally, the closer a resource is to the viewer, the more dominant it is and the greater its importance to the viewer. Although distance zones in a viewshed may vary between different geographic region or types of terrain, the standard foreground zone is

0.25 to 0.5 miles from the viewer, the middle ground zone from the foreground zone to 3 to 5 miles from the 5 U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. (Agriculture Handbook Number 701). 6 Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988. 7
Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988. 8
Jones, G. R., J. Jones, B. A. Gray, B. Parker, J. C. Coe, J. B. Burnham, and N. M. Geitner. 1975. A Method for the Quantification of Aesthetic Values for Environmental Decision Making. Nuclear Technology 25(4): 682–713. 9 Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988.

Page 2119 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-10
viewer, and the background zone from the middle-ground to infinity.10 Visual sensitivity depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Visual sensitivity is also modified by viewer activity, awareness, and visual expectations in relation to the number of viewers and viewing duration. For example, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure, people engaging in recreational activities such as hiking, biking or camping, and homeowners.

Sensitivity tends to be lower for views seen by people driving to and from work or as part of their work. 11,12,13 Commuters and non-recreational travelers have generally fleeting views and tend to focus on commute traffic, not on surrounding scenery; therefore, they are generally considered to have low visual sensitivity. Residential viewers typically have extended viewing periods and are concerned about changes in the views from their homes; therefore, they are generally considered to have high visual sensitivity. Viewers using recreation trails and areas, scenic highways, and scenic overlooks are usually assessed as having high visual sensitivity.

Judgments of visual quality and viewer response must be made based in a regional frame of reference.14 The same landform or visual resource appearing in different geographic areas could have a different degree of visual quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but have very little significance in mountainous terrain. (4) Visual Effects of the Proposed Project
Using the concepts and terminology, described above and criteria for determining significance, described below, analysis of the visual effects of the project are based on:

Photographic documentation of key views of and from the project site, including adjacent residential subdivisions and and roadways; Evaluation of regional visual context; Review of project visual simulations;
Review of conceptual landscape plans; and
Review of the project in regard to compliance with state and local ordinances and regulations and professional standards pertaining to visual quality.

The focus of this visual analysis is on the potential for the proposed project to adversely affect views from publicly accessible vantage points (i.e., views from public roads, trails, towns, parks, or bridges instead of from private viewing locations). Publicly accessible locations in the community from which residents would view the project area are considered to be of importance in the analysis. Although the analysis of view 10 Jones, G. R., J. Jones, B. A. Gray, B. Parker, J. C. Coe, J. B. Burnham, and N. M. Geitner. 1975. A Method for the Quantification of Aesthetic Values for Environmental Decision making. Nuclear Technology 25(4): 682–713. 11 U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. (Agriculture Handbook Number 701). 12 Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988. 13
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture (Technical Release No. 65).

Washington, DC. 14
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture (Technical Release No. 65).

Washington, DC.

Page 2120 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-11
impacts is focused on publicly available views, private views of nearby residents are also considered for informational purposes.

Visual simulations prepared by BMLA are used in this analysis. The photo simulations identify four key view points and provide a photograph showing the existing views from that location and then the view that would exist after project implementation. These photo simulations are provided as figures in this section. The key view points were selected in consultation with City staff. (5) Light and Glare
Artificial light impacts are typically associated with light that occurs during the evening and nighttime hours, and may include streetlights, illuminated signage, vehicle headlights, and other point sources. Uses such as residences and hotels are considered light-sensitive since they are typically occupied by persons who have an expectation of privacy during evening hours and who are subject to disturbance by bright light sources.

The analysis of lighting impacts focuses on whether the project would cause or substantially increase lighting effects on light-sensitive uses.

Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with mid-to high-rise buildings with exterior façades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass or mirror-like materials from which the sun can reflect, particularly following sunrise and prior to sunset.

Glare generation is typically related to sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at certain times of the year. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light sensitive land use. The analysis of glare focuses on whether glare effects would interfere with off-site activities.
(6) Shade and Shadow
Sensitive land uses in the area subject to shading by this project are the adjacent residential uses. Increased shading on sensitive areas would be considered significant if shading would be increased by more than 3 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. during the period of October through April, or for more than 4 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. during the period of April through October. The analysis of shade/shadow evaluated if shading would be significant at winter solstice (around December 21), the day with the shortest daylight period and longest shadows (i.e., the “worst case scenario”). The analysis was conducted by reviewing aerial photography of the project site and the proposed plans for both the project and the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension.
(7) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
The evaluation of aesthetic resources compares the project to the standards and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan. It should be noted that an inconsistency with a particular goal or policy is only considered a significant impact only if it (a) is a mandatory goal or policy; and (2) results in physical impacts on the environment.

Page 2121 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-12
b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study Checklist provide thresholds of significance to determine whether a project would have a significant environmental impact regarding aesthetics. Based on the size and scope of the Project and the potential for aesthetics impacts, the thresholds identified below are included for evaluation in this EIR.

Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-1); Threshold 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-2); Threshold 3: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-3);
Threshold 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime public views (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-4);
Threshold 5: Shade shadow-sensitive uses more than three consecutive hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. during the period of October through April, or for more than 4 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. during the period of April through October (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-5); and
Threshold 6: 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 aesthetic effect (refer to Impact Statement 4.A-6).

In determining the significance of aesthetics and visual resources impacts identified in the above thresholds, this analysis relies on professional standards, which are utilized as a tool to gauge the severity of aesthetics- related effects. For example, Threshold 1 above indicates that a significant impact would result if a project results in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, but in order to identify what a “substantial adverse effect” is, one must employ established professional standards. Professional standards result from professional and direct expertise gained by professionals working on visual analyses and consulting with other experienced staff, sub-consultants, and clients regarding visual effects, including knowledge gained from public input on a broad range of projects. The effects listed represent collective knowledge that is professionally agreed upon and represents common, general public concerns. According to professional standards, and in light of the significance thresholds presented above, a project may be considered to have significant aesthetic impacts if it would significantly:

Conflict with local guidelines or goals related to visual quality; Alter the existing natural viewsheds, including changes in natural terrain; Alter the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate visual resources; Increase light and glare in the project vicinity;

Page 2122 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-13
Result in backscatter light into the nighttime sky;
Result in a reduction of sunlight or introduction of shadows in community areas; Obstruct or permanently reduce visually important features; or Result in long-term (that is, persisting for 2 years or more) adverse visual changes or contrasts to the existing landscape as viewed from areas with high visual sensitivity. c. Project Design Features
The 292 single-family residences would be developed on lots that are a minimum of 7,200 gross square feet consistent with the proposed zoning. The lots would be generally clustered on the site with 45 lots located to the north of Mabey Canyon and 247 lots located to the south of Mabey Canyon.

Open space would be provided within the project site in the form of landscaped slopes, landscaped and native open space areas, and landscaped detention basins. Figures 2-8 and 2-9 of this EIR provide a conceptual landscape plan, which illustrates proposed landscaping for slopes, open space areas, and detention basins. Plantings on commonly-owned (i.e., under Homeowners’ Association [HOA] ownership) and private slopes would be chosen from “Defensible Space Landscaping Plant Palette for Fuel Modification in Riverside County” guidelines and all trees and shrubs would be California Department of Water Resources “Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species” (WUCOLS) low water use. Trees would be 15 gallons for each 400 square feet of slope. Shrubs would be two shrubs for each 64 square feet of slope: 60 percent would be one gallon and 40 percent would be five gallon. Detention basin areas would be planted with trees and shrubs to screen views of the basin at the perimeter and the basin floor would be hydroseeded with an appropriate native mix to be determined. Along street frontages, 24-inch boxed trees would be planted at a rate of one per lot or at 35 feet on center.

Irrigation would consist of point source drip or in-line drip irrigation. Overhead spray irrigation would not be permitted. Groundcovers would consist of three inches of “gorilla hair” mulch that would be spread evenly over all slope areas to keep soil moist and reduce the need for daily watering.

Figure 2-10 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR provides a conceptual open space plan that illustrates a typical layout for common slopes and open space areas. Where views are available, the view corridor would be retained and an overlook area with seating would be provided. Open space would combine plant and tree species and provide for turf areas to enhance use and access. However, through the City’s design review process on the landscape plans, the turf areas may be subject to removal depending on the adoption of current ordinances pertaining to water conservation. Common open space recreation areas would be planted with WUCOLS low-water plants, as shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9. Areas containing native open space would not be altered from existing conditions.

Landscaping on private property would be consistent with City of Corona standards. One 15-gallon tree or larger is required for each 400 square feet of slope. No less than 50 percent of the trees would be evergreens. Two shrubs would be required for each 64 feet of slope area. For groundcovers, rooted cuttings shall be planted at 12 inches on center minimum and 24 inches on center maximum, depending on the variety of groundcover. Smaller trees and shrubs would be planted at the top of the slope and larger trees and shrubs are to be planted further downslope to preserve views and lines of sight. Trees would be planted near the property line to further frame the view.

Page 2123 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-14
Lighting on the site would be typical of residential developments. Light sources would be in the form of residential lighting on the houses and security lighting in the yards and garages. In addition, street-lights would be installed on the new roadways within the subdivision. All lighting would be installed consistent with the City’s Municipal Code that requires that all lighting shall be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses, and open space. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Views/Scenic Vistas
Threshold Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact 4.A-1 Construction and operation of the proposed project would permanently alter the viewshed at the project site and views of scenic resources in the project area. Therefore, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact relative to views and scenic vistas. (a) Short-term Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would occur in three phases. Construction of the proposed residential subdivision would create temporary changes in views of and across the project site. Construction activities would introduce considerable heavy equipment and associated vehicles, including dozers, graders, scrapers, and trucks, as well as safety signage for construction areas into the viewshed of residences located to the north and east of the site. Construction activities and staging areas would be temporarily visually disruptive for all viewer groups, including adjacent residents, travelers along the Foothill Parkway (with the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension), and recreationists visiting and using the Cleveland National Forest as well as people using the roadway for cycling, walking or jogging.

While construction would be temporary in nature, impacts to scenic vistas would be significant because of the location of the site in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and the associated viewsheds from adjacent residences and the Cleveland National Forest trails, including the Skyline Drive Trail. The site is located west of Chase Avenue, which is a designated scenic highway, and views to the Santa Ana Mountains from Chase Avenue would be altered during the construction of the project. Based on the significance thresholds provided above, construction of the project would result in a significant impact to visual resources since it would: (1) alter the existing natural viewshed, including changes in natural terrain; (2) alter the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate visual resources (e.g., natural topography and vegetation on the project site); (3) obstruct or permanently reduce visually important features (e.g., on-site natural terrain; and (4) result in long-term adverse visual changes or contrasts to the existing landscape as viewed from areas with high visual sensitivity (e.g., designated scenic roadways such as Chase Avenue and publicly accessible trails such as the Skyline Drive Trail). As such, although temporary, project-related grading and construction activities would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to views and scenic vistas.
(b) Operation
Implementation of the project would disturb the native vegetation, introduce ornamental and native vegetation, and substantially alter the existing topography of the project site. While the project would permanently alter the foreground views of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, the background views to

Page 2124 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-15
the Santa Ana Mountains would remain following project implementation. Upon completion, however, existing views of undeveloped land would be replaced with views of single-family residences. As shown below in Figure 4.A-3, Visual Simulation #1, the proposed project would be visible from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension looking south from Mabey Canyon. The future residences would be located at a higher elevation and thus would be visible on the hillside. The residences would be clustered and would be at different elevations and would step up the hillside. As designed, the residences would appear to step up the hillside, which would help to reduce the visual presence of the new homes from this vantage point. As shown in Figure 4.A-4, Visual Simulation #2, the foothills would screen the proposed subdivision from view within the residential subdivision located to the east of the site. As shown in Figure 4.A-5, Visual Simulation #3, the project would not substantially alter the background views of the foothills, but mid-distance views to the interior of the project site would be altered by project-related structures and landscaping. Nonetheless, the residences that would be developed would be located at a substantial distance from the roadway. As shown in Figure 4.A-6, Visual Simulation #4, the project would substantially alter the views of the foothills.

The roadway that would provide access to the residences as well as the residences would be visibly prominent in foreground and mid-distance views.

Final grading plans would be reviewed by the City Public Works Department and the areas and heights of cut and fill would be minimized to the extent technically achievable, ensuring that slope and bottoms are rounded and facilitate a smooth and seamless transition where natural and built slopes intersect. Disturbed areas would be replanted, while hillside and canyon slopes would be planted to soften the impact of grading, structures, retaining walls, and proposed streets within the subdivision. However, due to the permanent alterations that would occur with the grading of the site to develop the 292 residences, the visual impacts to the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains would remain significant and unavoidable for the same reasons discussed above relative to construction impacts.
(2) Scenic Resources
Threshold Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact 4.A-2 Although the proposed project would alter the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, long- distance views of the mountains from Chase Avenue would remain. There are no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings designated in the area that would be affected by the project. Nonetheless, due to the substantial modification of on-site topography and introduction of urban uses into an existing undeveloped area, impacts to scenic resources are considered significant and unavoidable.

Chase Drive provides western views toward the Santa Ana Mountains. While the project would result in grading within the foothills of the mountains and the development of 292 single-family residences, the project would not affect trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings since none currently exist on site.

Further, the residences would be clustered and would be developed on lots of at least 7,200 square feet, and the project would preserve approximately 96 acres of natural open space within the 270.9-acre project site.

With regard to scenic highways, Chase Drive provides western views toward the Santa Ana Mountains. The future Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which would include a new roundabout intersection at Chase

Page 2125 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-16
Drive and Mangular Avenue, would alter westward foreground and mid-distance views. The project would further alter the views from Chase Avenue, which is a designated City Scenic Highway, but the background views to the Santa Ana Mountains would remain. However, because of the alteration of the foothills that would result from the grading, development of the roadways, and the development of the proposed residences, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. (3) Aesthetics/Visual Character Threshold Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Impact 4.A-3 Implementation of the proposed project would alter the topography of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountain. In addition, the existing views would be altered with the development of 292 single-family residences. While the project would incorporate project design features to minimize impacts, such as the clustering of residences, the project would alter the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the visual character and quality of the site.

The project site would be zoned R-1-7.2 (single-family residential), which would require a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The development of the residential subdivision would be constructed in three phases and would be completed by 2020. As indicated above, the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be completed prior to the initiation of construction of the proposed project. During construction and the implementation of the project, the site would transition from a rugged natural setting to that of a bare hillside under development. The removal of vegetation would result in a noticeable contrast between the existing residential neighborhoods to the north and east and the Cleveland National Forest to the west and south. Mass grading of the project site would be completed in a single phase. Once the mass grading phase has been completed, newly manufactured hillsides would be replanted with a mixture of tree and shrub species in an effort to blend in with the surrounding foothill setting. Although the appearance of an unvegetated project under construction would be temporary in nature, impacts would be considered substantial, and therefore, significant and unavoidable. As shown in Figure 2-6 of this Draft EIR, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) parcels within the annexation area and the open space parcel at the south edge of the annexation area would be maintained as permanent open space. This would allow permanent access to Skyline Drive and trails within the Cleveland National Forest. The residential subdivision would result in a clustering of residences within the project site.

The project would result in the development of an approximately 271-acre subdivision, with approximately 96 acres of which would be preserved as natural open space , which would help concentrate the development and reduce the appearance of a sprawling new residential subdivision. Additional open space would also be provided within the project site (Tentative Tract 36544) in the form of landscaped slopes, landscaped and native open space areas, and landscaped detention basins. Where views are available from the USFWS or open space parcels, the view corridor would be retained and an overlook area with seating would be provided. Open space would combine plant and tree species and provide for turf areas to enhance use and access. The manufactured slopes would be revegetated with a mixture of plant species that would be similar to those present in surrounding developments, thereby reducing the visual presence of the new subdivision. The subdivision layout and revegetation/landscaping plan would help to blend the project in with the existing surrounding are and neighborhoods in the long term.

Page 2126 of 3613 ends

Visual Simula on #1 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-3
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Page 2127 of 3613 ends

Visual Simula on #2 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-4
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Page 2128 of 3613 ends

Visual Simula on #3 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-5
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Page 2129 of 3613 ends

Visual Simula on #4 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.A-6
Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2015.

Page 2130 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-21
Overall, the proposed development would replace the views of the existing undeveloped foothills with views of a residential subdivision and associated graded slopes, structures, and landscaping. While the project would grade the slopes so as to appear natural and the project would include extensive landscaping, the change in the natural environmental would be considered a significant change to the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact relative to the visual character and quality of the site. (4) Light and Glare
Threshold Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact 4.A-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not create substantial light or glare which would adversely affect views in the area. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to light and glare.

Currently, there are no significant sources of light or glare existing from within the project site. Existing sources of light and glare within the project area include exterior lighting from the residential uses to the north and east of the site. Ambient nighttime lighting in the project vicinity is characteristic of those within residential areas.

The project would introduce new sources of light as a result of the development of 292 residences and associated infrastructure. Light sources would be in the form of residential lighting on the houses, security lighting in the yards and garages, and vehicle lights from project-related traffic. It is anticipated that the exterior surfaces of the proposed residential uses would be finished with a combination of architectural coatings (e.g., stucco) and other materials (e.g., brick, wood, or tile) similar to other existing residential uses in the City. At night, lighting of the internal space of the residences and movement of vehicles with headlights on the new streets would create additional sources of light in the project area. Light from residential interiors would result from the operation of indoor lighting and appliances. Light coming from these interior sources typically are small enough (e.g., light from a lamp or light from a television) and easily contained (e.g., closing of drapes and curtains or switching off lights) that any such residential lighting would not exceed the intensity necessary to significantly affect adjacent uses. Light from vehicle movement within the subdivision would be partially blocked by buffer walls and vegetation located between the project site and adjacent uses. Nighttime lighting impacts from the proposed residential uses to the areas north and east of the site would not occur because of distance and intervening topography.

With regard to street lighting on the new roadways, the City of Corona has established standards for the design, placement, and operation of proposed public improvements such as lighting in its Municipal Code.

The City’s Municipal Code states that all lighting shall be designed to direct light downward with minimal spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses, and open space. The code requires that new development include light buffering and other related light shielding measures that are uniformly applied to all development in the City. As such, adherence to these measures would be required and enforceable through the review and approval (or non-approval) of the project plans, and would reduce any potential impacts from street lighting. The site is vacant and does not currently represent a source of glare to the surrounding environment. The introduction of homes, and therefore reflective surfaces such as windows, cars, and rooftop materials, may

Page 2131 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-22
result in new sources of glare. However, given the distance from other residences, the intervening topography, and similar residential uses within the project vicinity, these potential new sources of glare would not be substantial and would therefore, be less than significant. (5) Shade/Shadow
Threshold Would the project shade shadow-sensitive uses more than three consecutive hours between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. during the period of October through April, or for more than 4 hours between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. during the period of April through October? Impact 4 A-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in measurable increases in off-site shading effects at nearby shade-sensitive uses. Therefore, shade/shadow impacts from the project would be less than significant.

The project would result in the development of 292 single-family residences within a hillside subdivision in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains on the western edges of the City. The site is located adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest. The proposed residences would comply with the applicable development standards, such as setbacks and height, which are established to provide light and air to all of the residences.

Given the proposed maximum building heights of the proposed residential structures, the distance to the nearest off-site shade-sensitive uses (i.e., residential uses to the east and northeast) and presence of steep intervening topography, the project is not expected to result in shade/shadow impacts on adjacent buildings.

In addition, given the orientation of the lots and proposed structural heights (i.e., two-story maximum), it is not anticipated that the residences within the subdivision would impact other residences within the subdivision. Therefore, impacts relative to shade/shadow would be less than significant. (6) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold 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 aesthetic effect? Impact 4.A-6 Implementation of the proposed project 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, Specific Plan and Municipal Code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impacts. This impact is considered less than significant. (a) Corona General Plan
The City of Corona General Plan includes various goals and policies within the Community Development – Community Design and Environmental Resources - Visual Resources Elements that relate to aesthetics, visual quality, and scenic resources. An analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with each of the applicable goals and policies within the Corona General Plan is presented below in Table 4.A-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated in Table 4.A-1, despite the substantial alteration of the project site from vacant land to a residential subdivision, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to aesthetics, views, and design. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Page 2132 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-23
Table 4.A-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
Community Development – Community Design
Goal 2.5 – A city of well-designed residential
neighborhoods, commercial districts and corridors,
industrial districts, and civic places that are uniquely identifiable in their building form, public places, and landscapes contributing to a high quality of life for
residents and positive image for visitors to the City.

Consistent. The proposed project would result in a
hillside subdivision. While the project would alter the existing land, the residences would be generally
clustered within the site and would be sited so as to
conform with the topography. In addition, the project
would preserve approximately 96 acres of the 270.9-acre project site as ungraded open space in its natural state.

Furthermore, landscaping would be planted within
common areas, detention basins, private property and
along street frontages. Landscaping on commonly- owned and private slopes would be chosen from “Defensible Space Landscaping Plant Palette for Fuel
Modification in Riverside County” guidelines and all trees and shrubs would be California Department of Water
Resources “Water Use Classifications of Landscape
Species” (WUCOLS) low water use. Landscaping would
be compatible with the native landscaping on the site.

The subdivision layout and revegetation/landscaping
plan would all help the proposed project blend in with
the existing surrounding neighborhoods in the long term.

Based on the foregoing facts, the project would
contribute to the high quality of life for residents and would contribute to the positive image for visitors to the City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this goal.

Environmental Resources - Visual Resources
Goal 10.22 Develop and implement land use controls
that preserve significant visual resources from potential loss or disruption.

Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards the City.

However, the project would comply with applicable land
use controls, including development standards and
design guidelines, which prescribe maximum building
heights, setbacks, and landscaping, among other
requirements, that minimize adverse visual effects of
development.

Policy 10.22.1 - Create unobstructed view corridors or
viewsheds of the San Bernardino, Santa Ana and San
Gabriel Mountains, the Chino and La Sierra Hills, and
other significant natural features from public spaces such as parks, termination of streets and community trails,
community centers, and school properties, where
feasible, as part of the design of development projects.

Consistent. While the proposed project would modify
the visual character of the project site and alter the
viewshed in the project area, particularly from public
trails such as the Skyline Drive Trail, long-distance views of scenic resources such as the San Bernardino, Santa
Ana, and San Gabriel Mountains, as well as the Chino and La Sierra Hills would not be substantially affected. As such, despite a significant impact related to alteration of the project site, the proposed project would be
consistent with this policy.

Policy 10.22.2 - Require that project applicants identify and map all slopes greater than 15 percent on parcels
within the City’s hillside areas, referred to as the “Hillside Management District,” in increments of 5 percent (e.g., Consistent. The site is located in a hillside area within the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. More
specifically, the site is located in an area that is mapped on Figure 4.5-1 in the City’s General Plan Technical

Page 2133 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
Table 4.A-1 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-24
Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
15 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent, and so on). Lands
within this District shall be subject to administrative review to assure that development is located and
designed to reflect its distinct environmental and
topographic characteristics consistent with the policies of this Plan, under the provisions of a Hillside
Development Ordinance.

Background Report as having slopes greater than 25
percent. Further, the Project’s Slope Analysis Maps
determine the slopes on-site do exceed 25 percent grade.

Policy 10.22.3 – Require that development in hillside
areas with greater than 25 percent slope be clustered on the most gently sloping portions of the site, to the extent feasible, according to the following density limitations of the underlying Land Use Plan designations.

Maximum Percentage of
Site to be Graded
Maximum Percent of
Allowable Density
40-44.9% 100%
45-49.9% 90%
50-54.9% 80%
55-59.9% 70%
60-64.9% 60%
65-69.9% 50%
70-74.9% 40%
75-79.9% 30%
80-84.9% 20%
85+% 10%
Consistent. The proposed project would result in a
hillside subdivision. While the project would alter the existing land, the residences would be generally
clustered within the site and would be sited so as to
conform with the topography.

Policy 10.22.4 – Require that projects be designed and
sited to maintain the natural topographic, physiographic, and aesthetic viewshed characteristics of those features, utilizing the following conditions:

Minimize the area and height of cuts and fills, to
the extent technically achievable ensuring that
slope tops and bottoms are rounded and
facilitate a smooth and seamless transition
where natural and built slopes intersect.

Configure development sites to mimic
predevelopment natural topography by
clustering sites and individual units and
avoiding extensive fragmentation of steep
slopes, “stair stepping” and varying terraces of
structures, and/or other design practices.

Consistent. The project would be developed in a hillside area within the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. The site has steep terrain and has elevations ranging from
945 feet to 1,730 feet AMSL. The 292 residences would
be generally clustered in the central portion of the site and the project would preserve visually significant slope banks and ridgelines in their natural state as natural
open space areas to the extent feasible. The project
would minimize the effects of grading by preserving
clusters of natural open space and having manufactures
slopes adjoin natural areas to help maintain the natural character of the hillsides. Retaining walls would be
developed to follow the topography and would be
designed with material and colors that blend in with the surrounding landscape. The manufactured slopes would
be landscaped to provide buffer zones and visual
interest. Drought tolerate species would be planted in

Page 2134 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
Table 4.A-1 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-25
Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
Minimize the size of flat development pads in
site grading to that necessary to accommodate
the building footprint and a reasonable amount
of useable outdoor space, as well as to assure
structural and site stability.

Encourage building architectural design styles,
forms and shapes, materials, and building siting
to complement, rather than visually dominate
their landscape setting.

Minimize the height of retaining walls and
design with smooth flowing forms that follow
topography and with material colors and
textures that blend in with the surrounding
landscape.

Plant hillside and canyon slopes with drought- tolerant species to soften the visual impact of land grading retaining walls, structures, and
roads.

Restore disrupted areas of vegetation, wildlife
habitat, natural watercourses and drainage
swales, and other important viewshed features.

Vegetation should be arranged in informal
masses to create a textured slope that is
characteristic to a natural chaparral mountain
slope terrain.
open space areas and on slopes to soften the visual
impact of grading, retaining walls, structures, and roads.

Although the proposed project has been determined to
result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
aesthetics and visual resources, the project’s design
complies with the intent and requirements of this policy, and therefore the project is determined to be consistent.

Policy 10.23.2 – Regulate new development through
provisions that require an analysis of impacts of
development on the quality of the City’s designated
highways and corridors.

Consistent. This policy is directed towards the City as relates to the evaluation of impacts of development
projects on designated scenic highways and corridors.

Nonetheless, an analysis of impacts to the City’s
designated highways and corridors has been provided
above under Impact 4.A-2 above. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Proposed project construction and operation were determined to result in less than significant impacts with respect to light and glare, and shade and shadow. However, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas, and the visual character and quality of the project site and surroundings. Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR provides a list of 32 projects that are planned or are under construction in the surrounding area. Of these, four are located in the hillsides, with Related Project No. 1 located north of the site and Related Project Nos. 4, 6, and 7 located south of the site.

These have the greatest potential to result in cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics, views, light/glare, and shade/shadow.

Page 2135 of 3613 ends

4.A. Aesthetics December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-26
The cumulative effect on scenic vistas from the proposed project would be potentially significant as scenic vistas would be substantially affected from viewpoints surrounding the project site and adjacent roads and trails (including the designated scenic roadway, Chase Avenue, and the Skyline Drive Trail). Although the development of the proposed project would alter views of the canyon area, it would not substantially obstruct views of surrounding mountain ranges from current vantage points near the proposed site. Scenic vistas would, however, be substantially affected by the transformation of the project site from vacant land to a graded, residential subdivision, as seen from viewpoints along roadways, trails, and other publicly accessible areas. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan standards would minimize the visual impacts on scenic vistas in the southwest portion of the City, but such cumulative effects would be considered significant.

The proposed project, in conjunction with the three hillside projects to the south of the site, represent a continuation of the residential development in this area to the southwest of the City. These projects each contribute to a gradual change in visual character with the conversion of undeveloped or agricultural property to residential uses. Although this change has been anticipated in the City’s General Plan, the project, in conjunction with related projects, would contribute to the cumulative development of the hillsides and the change from natural land to suburban subdivisions. Therefore, the project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative degradation in visual quality.

With regard to light and glare, cumulatively, more lighting would be introduced into the area by proposed, existing, and future development. As with past and currently proposed development, cumulative lighting-and glare-related impacts would be reduced through the adherence to applicable City standards. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant lighting impact and cumulative light and glare impacts would be less than significant. With regard to shade/shadow, the related projects are located a minimum of approximately ½-mile from the project site and therefore, would not contribute to cumulative shade/shadow impacts.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
All feasible mitigation – including clustering and compliance with state and local development codes – have been incorporated into the project. There are no additional mitigation measures available that could reduce the significance of impacts to the scenic vistas, or the visual character and quality of the site. 5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to scenic resources, light and glare, and shade/shadow would be less than significant.

However, given the substantial landform alteration of the project site required to implement the proposed project, impacts related to views/scenic vistas, visual resources, and visual character would be significant and unavoidable, as no mitigation measures are available to reduce the significance of these impacts.

However, the graded slopes will be revegetated and will fill in over time to blend more with the scenic landscape.

Page 2136 of 3613 ends

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
B. AIR QUALITY

INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR addresses the project’s potential to result in air quality-related impacts during construction and operation of the project. Relevant regulations and existing conditions are described as well as the potential for the project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Air quality technical data utilized to prepare this section was obtained from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report), prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, dated May 2014, which is included in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Regional Air Quality
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is shown in Figure 4.B-1, Boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Federal Planning Areas. The Basin is an area covering approximately 6,745 square miles and bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. The terrain and geographical location determine the distinctive climate of the Basin, which is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills.

The Southern California region lies in a semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography) as well as human-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin, making it an area of high pollution potential.

Data from the Western Regional Climate Center were used to characterize project vicinity climate conditions.

According to the data, the average temperatures recorded in the City of Corona typically ranges from the middle 50s to the high 70s.1Furthermore, the majority of the annual rainfall in the area occurs between November and April. The average annual precipitation in Corona is 12.56 inches. The nearest wind monitoring station to the project site is located in Norco, CA. This wind monitoring station was used to characterize project area wind conditions. Wind patterns in the project vicinity display a nearly 1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2013.

Page 2137 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-2
unidirectional flow, primarily from the west, with an average speed of 4.54 miles per hour and calm wind conditions are present 8.7 percent of the time.2 The greatest air pollution impacts in the Basin occur from June through September and are generally attributed to large amounts of pollutant emissions, light winds, and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing.

These conditions frequently reduce pollutant dispersion, thus causing elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations in the Basin vary with location, season, and time of day. Ozone concentrations, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert.

Air quality within the basin is regulated by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, including all of Orange County; Los Angeles County, except for the Antelope Valley; the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County; and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The Basin is a sub-region of the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Although air quality in this area has improved, the Basin requires continued diligence to meet air quality standards.

The SCAQMD has completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III (MATES III), an ambient air monitoring and evaluation study that was conducted in the Basin.3 MATES III, which was a follow-up to previous air toxics studies in the Basin, is part of the Environmental Justice Initiative of the SCAQMD Governing Board.

Over the past 30 years, substantial progress has been made to reduce air pollution levels in Southern California. For example, compared with previous studies of air toxics in the Basin, MATES III found a decreasing risk for air toxics exposure, with the population-weighted risk down by 17% from the analysis in MATES II. However, although there has been improvement in air quality as it pertains to air toxics, the risks are still unacceptable (e.g., air pollution levels are higher near sources of emissions such as ports and transportation corridors). Diesel particulate continues to dominate the risk from air toxics, and the portion of air toxic risk attributable to diesel exhaust is increasing compared with the MATES II study. The highest risks are found near the port, central Los Angeles, and transportation corridors. The results from the MATES III study underscore the need for a continued focus on reducing toxic emissions, particularly from diesel engines, to reduce air toxics exposure.

The MATES III study concluded that the average carcinogenic risk throughout the Basin, attributed to toxic air contaminants (TACs), is 1,194 in one million based on the average at fixed monitoring sites. Mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft) represent the greatest contributors. Approximately 83.6 percent of all risk is attributed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Meteorological Data for Dispersion Model Application, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data. Accessed October 2014. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Report, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study, MATES-III, (2008).

Page 2138 of 3613 ends

FIGURE Boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and Federal Planning Areas
Skyline Heights Project 4.B-1
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2014. N

Page 2139 of 3613 ends

Background Inhala on Cancer Risk for Project Site Area FIGURE Skyline Heights Project 4.B-2
Source: SCAQMD MATES III Carcinogenic Risk Interac ve Map. h p://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/ Accessed October 2014. 0 5 Miles N Inhalation Cancer Risk
is 274 per million

Page 2140 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-5
(2) Local Air Quality
(a) Criteria Pollutants
The SCAQMD, which has divided the Basin into air monitoring areas, maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The project site is located in the Corona/Norco Area (i.e., Source Receptor Area [SRA] Number 22). The nearest monitoring station is in the City of Norco, though not all pollutants are measured at this station (only particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter [PM10] is monitored). As such, data for the other criteria pollutants were collected from the next monitoring station in closest proximity to the project site. The monitoring data are summarized in Table 4.B-1, Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data shows that during the past three years, the project area has exceeded the ozone, PM10, and fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) standards.
(b) Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. As part of MATES III, the SCAQMD prepared maps that show regional trends in estimated outdoor inhalation cancer risk from TAC emissions, as part of an ongoing effort to provide insight into relative risks. The maps represent the estimated number of potential cancers per million people associated with a lifetime of breathing air toxics (24 hours per day outdoors for 70 years). The project spans across two 2-kilometer (1.24-mile) grids as shown in Figure 4.B-2, Background Inhalation Cancer Risk for Project Site Area. As shown, the potential cancers per million people for these grid spaces are estimated at 230 and 329 per million. Generally, the risk from air toxics is lower near the coastline and increases inland, with higher risks concentrated near large diesel sources (e.g., freeways, airports, and ports). Areas with lower intensity development and fewer freeways also have relatively lower risks.

The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the ten TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data. These TACs are as follows: acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, paradichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and DPM. Several of these TACs (acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and DPM) are emitted by fossil fuel combustion such as gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles.

Asbestos is also listed as a TAC by CARB and as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by the USEPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in surface deposits of several types of rock formations. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestoform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining.

Page 2141 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-6
Table 4.B-1
Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item
Year
2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3)1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.121 0.126 0.124
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 22 32 31
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.094 0.104 0.103
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 59 63 72
Days > National Standard (0.075 ppm) 38 36 47
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual3 Annual Average (ppm) 0.017 ID ID
1 Hour2 98th Percentile (ppm) 0.057 0.057 0.055
1 Hour3 Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.061 0.057 0.060
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour2 Max 1 Hour (ppm) 3 ND 1.6
Days > State Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Days > National Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0
8 Hour3 Max 8 Hour (ppm)6 1.73 1.49 1.46
Days > State Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Days > National Standard (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual4 Annual Average (ppm) 0.001 0.000 ID
24 Hour4 Max 24 Hour (ppm) 0.005 0.001 0.001
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) 0 0 0
1 Hour2 Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.02 0.05 0.05
Days > State Standard (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Days > National Standard (0.075 ppm) 0 0 0
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)5
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 27.2 27.6 26.6
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (µg/m3) 50.0 60.0 52.0
Measured Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 0 2 1
Measured Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)3 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3)7 11.0 11.7 ID 24 Hour Max 24 Hour (µg/m3)7 43.7 51.6 30.2
Measured Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 2 2 0
Notes and Abbreviations: > = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3= microgram per cubic meter ID = Insufficient Data 1 From the Mira Loma Van Buren monitoring station. 2 From the SCAQMD monitoring station No. 4144. 3 From the Riverside-Magnolia monitoring station. 4 From the Riverside-Rubidoux monitoring station. 5 From the SCAQMD monitoring station 4155. 6 State statistic. 7 National statistic.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May2014.

Page 2142 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-7
The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. There are no known likely areas of naturally occurring asbestos in the project area.4 (3) Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. In general, sensitive receptors are considered to be locations that houses or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Specifically, the SCAQMD considers elderly care facilities, daycare facilities, schools, parks, residential areas, hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities as sensitive receptor locations. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project are existing residences to the north and east. To the southeast of the project site is a single-family residential community that is currently graded and under construction (TTM 31955).
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for regulating and enforcing national and interstate air pollution issues and policies pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA was enacted in 1963 and amended numerous times in subsequent years (1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for local areas not meeting those standards. All SIPs must be approved by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as containing sufficient measures to timely attain NAAQS and meet other requirements. SIPs must contain air pollution measures in adopted, "regulatory" form within one year after approval by EPA. Upon approval by EPA, SIP requirements can be enforced against regulated sources by EPA and by any citizen.5 Among the numerous other CAA requirements are: a mandate that the region achieve a three percent annual reduction in emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and NOx); a requirement that new sources over 10 tons per year of VOC or NOx, and modifications to such sources, achieve lowest achievable emission rate and offset their emission increases by equal reductions elsewhere in the region and transportation control measures to reduce vehicle trips.6 The plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. Because the City of Corona is within the Basin, it is in an area that has been designated as a nonattainment area for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA identify specific emission-reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS. These amendments require both a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. The sections of the 4 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open-File Report 2011-1188, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed August 23, 2012. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Authority – Federal Air Quality Law. “State Implementation Plans”. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/authority. Accessed July 2015. 6 Ibid.

Page 2143 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-8
CAA that would affect development of the proposed project the most are Title I (Nonattainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile-Source Provisions).

Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. Table 4.B-2, Descriptions of Air Pollutants, shows the NAAQS currently in effect for each criteria pollutant. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an 8-hour standard for O3 and adopt a standard for PM2.5. The Basin (Riverside County portion) fails to meet national standards for O3 and PM2.5 and therefore is considered a federal nonattainment area for these pollutants. Table 4.B-3, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status, lists each criteria pollutant and its related attainment status.

Table 4.B-2
Descriptions of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time CAAQS NAAQS a Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — Irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern changes; reduction of breathing
capacity; inflame and damage cells that line the
lungs; make lungs more susceptible to infection;
aggravate asthma; aggravate other chronic lung
diseases; cause permanent lung damage; some
immunological changes; increased mortality risk;
vegetation and property damage.
8 Hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) b
1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups;
risk to public health implied by pulmonary and
extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes
and pulmonary structural changes; contribution to
atmospheric discoloration; increased visits to
hospital for respiratory illnesses.

Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest
pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease;
decreased exercise tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and lung disease;
impairment of central nervous system functions;
possible increased risk to fetuses; death.
8 Hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) c 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath
and chest tightness, during exercise or physical
activity in persons with asthma. Some population- based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles
show a similar association with ambient sulfur
dioxide levels. It is not clear whether the two
pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant
alone is the predominant factor.
3 Hour — 0.5 ppm
24 Hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm (for
certain areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm (for
certain areas)

Page 2144 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
Table 4.B-2 (Continued)
Descriptions of Air Pollutants
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-9
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time CAAQS NAAQS a Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 Hours 50 µg/m3c 150 µg/m3 - Short-term exposure (hours/days): irritation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest
tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing
lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer
heart attacks and arrhythmias. - Long-term exposure: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology;
death.

Annual 20 µg/m3 —
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) d
24 Hours — 35 µg/m3 Annual 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing Particles
8 Hour See note below e Sulfates 24 Hours 25 µg/m3 — (a) Decrease in ventilator function; (b) aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c)
aggravation of cardiopulmonary disease; (d)
vegetation damage; (e) degradation of visibility;
(f) property damage.

Lead (Pb)
f 30-Day
Average

1.5 µg/m3 — Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the kidneys, liver, and nervous
system. It can cause impairment of blood
formation and nerve conduction, behavior
disorders, mental retardation, neurological
impairment, learning deficiencies, and low IQs.

Calendar
Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3- Month
Average — 0.15 µg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm — High levels of hydrogen sulfide can cause immediate respiratory arrest. It can irritate the
eyes and respiratory tract and cause headache,
nausea, vomiting, and cough. Long exposure can
cause pulmonary edema.

Vinyl Chloride f 24 Hours 0.01 ppm — Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in the air causes central nervous system
effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and
headaches. Epidemiological studies of
occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl
chloride exposure to development of a rare cancer,
liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a
relationship between exposure and lung and brain
cancers.

Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)
There are no State or federal ambient air
quality standards for VOCs because they are
not classified as criteria pollutants. However,
VOCs are ozone precursors.

Although health-based standards have not been
established for VOCs, health effects can occur from
exposures to high concentrations because of
interference with oxygen uptake. In general,
concentrations of VOCs are suspected to cause eye,
nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of
coordination; nausea; and damage to the liver, the
kidneys, and the central nervous system. Many
VOCs have been classified as toxic air
contaminants.

Page 2145 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
Table 4.B-2 (Continued)
Descriptions of Air Pollutants
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-10
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time CAAQS NAAQS a Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Benzene There are no State or federal ambient air
quality standards for benzene because it is not
classified as a criteria pollutant. However,
benzene is a TAC.

Short-term (acute) exposure of high doses from
inhalation of benzene may cause dizziness,
drowsiness, headaches, eye irritation, skin
irritation, and respiratory tract irritation, and at
higher levels, loss of consciousness can occur.

Long-term (chronic) occupational exposure of
high doses has caused blood disorders, leukemia,
and lymphatic cancer.

Diesel Particulate
Matter (DPM)
There are no State or federal ambient air
quality standards for DPM because it is not
classified as a criteria pollutant. However,
DPM is a TAC.

Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel PM
exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung
irritation, coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and
nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle
levels in the air to increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and
premature deaths among those suffering from
respiratory problems. Human studies on the
carcinogenicity of diesel PM demonstrate an
increased risk of lung cancer, although the
increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to
diesel exhaust exposure.

Notes and Abbreviations:
ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual = Annual Arithmetic Mean a Federal standard refers to the primary national ambient air quality standard, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3 Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. b
To attain the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (0.100 ppm). c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d On December 14, 2012, the USEPA revised the PM2.5 1-hour standard to 12.0 µg/m3 and retained the 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m3. e Visibility reducing particles: In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. f
CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014 Several pollutants listed in Table 4.B-2 and Table 4.B-3 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in this report because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The proposed

Page 2146 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-11
project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity. (2) State
(a) California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The CAAQS incorporate additional standards for most of the criteria pollutants and set standards for other pollutants recognized by the state. In general, the California standards are more health protective than the corresponding NAAQS. California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. The Basin is in compliance with the California standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles, and vinyl chloride. Table 4.B-2 details the current NAAQS and CAAQS, and Table 4.B-3 provides the Basin’s attainment status with respect to federal and state standards. (b) CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 horsepower and Greater
Effective February 19, 2011, each fleet shall comply with weighted reduced particulate matter emission fleet averages by compliance dates listed in the regulation. The measure also requires owners to ensure the average particulate matter emission level for their fleet does not fall out of compliance due to changes in the fleet.
(c) CARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the CARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in-use (existing) off- road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and Table 4.B-3
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutants Federal Designation State Designation
O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment
NO2 Attainment/Maintenance Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Pb (Los Angeles County) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Pb (other parts of the Basin, including
the project area)
Attainment Attainment
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014; California Air Resources Board, Area Designations Maps/State and National, August 2014. The most recent updates from CARB indicate that the South Coast Air Basin is in attainment for the state standards for NO2.

Page 2147 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-12
labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. CARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 combined horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 combined horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 combined horsepower or less). The compliance schedule requires that equipment turn overs or retrofits be fully implemented by 2023 in all equipment in large and medium fleets and by 2028 in small fleets.
(d) CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure
In July 2001, CARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than one acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.
(e) California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook The CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook in April 2005 to serve as a general guide for considering impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions. The recommendations provided therein are voluntary and do not constitute a requirement or mandate for either land use agencies or local air districts. The goal of the guidance document is to protect sensitive receptors, such as children, the elderly, acutely ill, and chronically ill persons, from exposure to TAC emissions. Some examples of CARB’s siting recommendations include the following: (1) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day; (2) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week); and (3) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation using perchloroethylene and within 500 feet of operations with two or more machines.
(3) Regional
(a) South Coast Air Quality Management District
The agency for air pollution control for the Basin is the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the basin. The SCAQMD is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCAQMD also has roles under CEQA.

Page 2148 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-13
(i) Air Quality Management Plan
The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. These plans require, among other emissions-reducing activities, control technology for existing sources, control programs for area sources and indirect sources, a SCAQMD permitting system to ensure no net increase in emissions from any new or modified (i.e., previously permitted) emission sources, and transportation control measures.

The 2012 AQMP was adopted December 7, 2012.7 The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the Basin is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the Basin into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update of the Basin’s projections in meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards. Specifically, the AQMP serves as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for which the USEPA had established a due date of December 14, 2012. In addition, the AQMP will update specific elements of the previously approved 8-hour ozone SIP: (1) an updated emissions inventory and, (2) new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to help fulfill the Section 182(e)(5) portion of the 8-hour ozone SIP.

The 2012 AQMP proposes Basin-wide PM2.5 measures that will be implemented by the 2014 attainment date, episodic control measures to achieve air quality improvements (would only apply during high PM2.5 days), Section 182(e)(5) implementation measures (to maintain progress towards meeting the 2023 8-hour ozone national standard), and transportation control measures. Most of the control measures focus on incentives, outreach, and education. Proposed PM2.5 reduction measures in the 2012 AQMP include the following:

Further NOX reductions from RECLAIM;
Further reductions from residential wood burning devices; Further reductions from open burning;
Emission reductions from under-fired charbroilers;
Further ammonia reductions from livestock waste;
Backstop measures for indirect sources of emissions from ports and port-related sources; and Further criteria pollutant reductions from education, outreach and incentives. There are multiple VOC and NOX reductions in the 2012 AQMP to attempt to reduce ozone formation, including further VOC reductions from architectural coatings, miscellaneous coatings, adhesives, solvents, lubricants, mold release products, consumer products.

The 2012 also contains proposed mobile source implementation measures for the deployment of zero- and near-zero emission on-road heavy-duty vehicles, locomotives, and cargo handling equipment. There are measures for the deployment of cleaner commercial harborcraft, cleaner ocean-going marine vessels, cleaner off-road equipment, and cleaner aircraft engines. The 2012 AQMP proposes the following mobile source implementation measures:
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-airplans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal. Accessed December 11, 2012.

Page 2149 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-14
On-road mobile sources:

Accelerated penetration of partial zero-emission and zero-emission vehicles and light-heavy and medium-heavy duty vehicles through funding assistance for purchasing the vehicles. Accelerated retirement of older light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles through funding incentives.

Further emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles serving near-dock railyards through a proposed control measure that calls for a requirement that any cargo container moved between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the nearby railyards by with zero-emission technologies.

Off-road mobile sources:

Extension of the SOON provision for construction/industrial equipment, which provides funding to repower or replace older Tier 0 and Tier 1 equipment. Further emission reductions from freight and passenger locomotives calls for an accelerated use of Tier 4 locomotives in the Basin. The 2012 AQMP also relies upon the SCAG regional transportation strategy, which is in its adopted 2012- 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, which contains the following sections:

1. Linking regional transportation planning to air quality planning: making sure that the RTP supports the goals and objectives of the AQMP/SIP.

2. Regional transportation strategy and transportation control measures: the RTP/SCS contains improvements to the regional multimodal transportation system including the following: active transportation (non-motorized transportation – biking and walking); transportation demand management; transportation system management; transit; passenger and high-speed rail; goods movement; aviation and airport ground access; highways; arterials; and operations and maintenance.

3. Reasonably available control measure analysis. (ii) Rules and Regulations The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules may apply to construction or operation of the project. The rules and regulations that apply to this project include, but are not limited to the following:

Regulation IV – Prohibitions: This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor nuisance, fugitive dust, various air emissions, fuel contaminants, start-up/shutdown exemptions and breakdown events. The following is a list of rules which may apply to the Project:

Rule 402 – Nuisance: This rule states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,

Page 2150 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-15
repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: This rule requires projects to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions from a site. Rule 403 restricts visible fugitive dust to the project property line, restricts the net PM10 emissions to less than 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and restricts the tracking out of bulk materials onto public roads. Additionally, projects must utilize one or more of the best available control measures (identified in the tables within the rule). Rule 403 measures may include but are not limited to the following:

Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).

Water active sites at least three times daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code section 23114.

Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less.

Suspension of all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind gusts) exceed 25 mph.

Bumper strips or similar best management practices shall be provided where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.

Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.

During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep onsite and offsite streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares, to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers.

Rule 445 – Wood Burning Devices: This rule prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour.

Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for different specific sources. The following is a list of rules which may apply to the Project:

Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt: This rule governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.

Page 2151 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-16
Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings: This rule governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents: This rule governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule.

Rule 1415 – Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Stationary Air Conditioning Systems:

The SCAQMD originally adopted Rule 1415 to reduce ozone-depleting refrigerant emissions from stationary, non-residential air conditioning (comfort cooling) and refrigeration systems with full charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds, and using Class I and Class II refrigerants. Recently, the SCAQMD amended Rule 1415 to include high-global warming potential refrigerants. Further, the rule now applies only to air conditioning systems with full charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant. Rule 1415.1 – Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Stationary Refrigeration Systems: The purpose of this rule is to control emissions of high-global warming potential refrigerants used in stationary, nonresidential refrigeration systems. With the adoption of Rule 1415.1, refrigeration systems with full charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds of high-global warming potential refrigerants are now regulated solely under the new rule. Such systems are typically used in supermarkets, cold storage warehouses, food processing plants, and process cooling operations.

Rule 1415.1 is equivalent in every aspect to the Refrigerant Management Program, a statewide regulation adopted by CARB to reduce emissions of high-global warming potential gases from stationary refrigeration systems.

Rule 2202 – On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options: The purpose of this rule is to provide employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. It applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average.
(iii) California Environmental Quality Act
The SCAQMD has two roles under CEQA:

1. Lead Agency: responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the SCAQMD where the SCAQMD has primary approval authority over the project.

2. Commenting Agency: the SCAQMD reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies (such as the proposed project).

The SCAQMD also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality analyses. The SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993, with section updates provided on the SCAQMD website) to help local governments analyze and mitigate project-specific air quality impacts. This handbook provides

Page 2152 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-17
standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses for CEQA documents prepared within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. In addition, SCAQMD has published two additional guidance documents— Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (June 2008) and Particulate Matter (PM)

2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (October 2006). These provide guidance for evaluating localized effects from mass emissions during construction. Both were used in the preparation of this analysis.
(b) Southern California Association of Governments
The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. It addresses regional issues related to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the majority of the Southern California region and the largest MPO in the nation. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) for the region, which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters. These chapters provide the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP and are used in the preparation of air quality forecasts and the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. (4) Local
The City of Corona General Plan includes policies related to air quality. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal 10.18 – Improve air quality conditions within the Corona Planning Area by controlling point sources, reducing vehicle trips, and striving to achieve attainment of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfate standards as enforced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Policy 10.18.3 – Incorporate the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Management Plans as conditions of approval for all new development and re- development projects. Goal 10.20 – Reduce criteria air pollutant emissions through more efficient land use planning and construction practices.

Policy 10.20.4 – Continue to create local employment opportunities by maintaining an adequate supply of designated commercial and industrial land supply, in accordance with the Land Use Element.

Policy 10.20.8 – Reduce particulate emission from paved and unpaved roads, parking lots, and road and building construction, as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Methods include but are not limited to:

Maintaining construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specification for the duration of construction Turning off construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, when not in use for more than five minutes

Page 2153 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-18
Encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) and low- emission diesel construction equipment to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective
Using the electricity infrastructure surrounding construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible Implement dust control measures consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust during the construction phases of new project development
Apply water and/or approved nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas that have been inactive for 10 or more days).

Replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved chemical soil binders to exposed piles with 5 percent or greater silt content Watering active grading sites at least twice daily
Suspending all excavating and grading operations when wind speed (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period.

Covering or maintaining at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer), in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code, in all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
Sweeping streets adjacent to construction sites at the end of the day Installing wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip Applying water three times daily or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces
Posting and enforcing traffic speed limits of 15 miles per hour or less on all unpaved roads
Goal 10.21 – Reduce air quality degradation through energy conservation.

Policy 10.21.1 – Reduce the amount of energy consumed by commercial and residential uses, as recommended by the Southern California Air Quality Management District.

Policy 10.21.2 – Continue to require the use and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction projects and wherever feasible, retrofitting in existing and re-development projects.

Page 2154 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-19

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
(1) Construction
Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors are the emission rate of a pollutant given the activity over time; for example, grams of NOX per horsepower hour. CARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the EMFAC mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was developed in cooperation with the SCAQMD and other air districts throughout the state. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses.

The CalEEMod model was used to compile the mass daily emissions (i.e., criteria pollutants) estimates for construction. Emission factors are often updated and there is a normal lag time between the development of new emission factors and the integration of the new emissions factors into the appropriate models. The version of CalEEMod used for the purposes of this analysis (CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2) was integrated with emissions factors from OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2011. The OFFROAD2011 update incorporates a reduction in the load factors by 33 percent compared with the previous version, OFFROAD2007, which equates to a decrease in off-road construction related emissions.8 The reduction in emissions from the changes in load factors was assumed in this assessment.

Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from on-site and off-site activities. On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Off- site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

The project site would be mass graded together as one phase. Construction would result in approximately 144.17 total acres disturbed including maintained open space and other spaces.9 The grading operation entails cut and fill from the existing grades to the proposed ultimate roadway and pad grades within the project development. The anticipated maximum cut and fill depths are 160 feet and 145 feet, respectively.

The estimated earthwork volume to be moved is approximately 5,000,000 cubic yards. The site is designed to balance the cut and fill within the project site with no import or export of material. The construction phase durations are currently unknown. Therefore, the CalEEMod default equipment and phase durations were used for the purposes of a conservative CEQA analysis. The default durations for each construction phase from the CalEEMod model is shown in Table 4.B-4, Construction Duration. 8 California Air Resources Board, Summary of Off-Road Emissions Inventory Update, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadappd.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2012. 9 KWC Engineers. Skyline Heights – Tentative Tract Map No. 36544. 2014.

Page 2155 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-20
CalEEMod defaults were used for the construction equipment fleet. Construction equipment during the site preparation and grading phase include dozers, tractors, excavators, graders, and scrapers. Equipment during the paving phase includes pavers, paving equipment, and rollers. Equipment during the building construction phase includes cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, and welders. Equipment during the architectural coating phase includes air compressors. The activity for construction equipment is based on the horsepower and load factors of the equipment. In general, the horsepower is the power of an engine – the greater the horsepower, the greater the power. The load factor is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity. In reality, load factors are less than 1.0 and generally range from 0.20 to 0.74 for equipment for the project.

SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust generating activities follow best available control measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust. These measures are accounted for in CalEEMod as “mitigation” because the model categorizes the measures as “mitigation,” even though implementation of the dust control measures would be required as part of construction of project. The best available control measures include but are not limited to the application of water, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas when unused for more than 10 days, and limiting vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. (2) Localized Analysis To facilitate the localized assessment process, the SCAQMD provides a series of look-up tables in the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology that contain localized significance thresholds for each Source Receptor Area within the basin.10 If on-site construction emissions exceed the localized significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current lookup tables are estimated by the SCAQMD based on air quality data from the years 2006 through 2008. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, Revised October 21, 2009, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed May 7, 2012.

Table 4.B-4
Construction Duration
Phase Duration (working days)
Site Preparation a 120
Grading a 310
Paving b 75
Building Construction b 1,110
Architectural Coating b 75
a Site Preparation and Grading duration based on mass grading of 144.17 acres. b Paving, building construction, and architectural coatings based on development of 292 residential dwelling units on 67.46 acres.

Source: CalEEMod and Michael Brandman Associates, 2014.

Page 2156 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-21
The localized significance thresholds appropriate to the project area were obtained from the look-up tables in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for a 5-acre project in Source Receptor Area 22. In addition to the dependence on geographic location within the SCAQMD (e.g., the Source Receptor Area), the localized thresholds also depend on the distance to the impacted receptor from the source of emissions. The distance to the nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 75 feet (23 meters) from the boundary of the project.

The SCAQMD has published a “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.”11 CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. In order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables, the CEQA document should contain in its project design features or its mitigation measures the following parameters:

1. The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.

2. The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.

3. Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.

4. Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.

During grading activities, fugitive dust can be generated from the movement of dirt on the project site. CalEEMod estimates dust from dozers moving dirt around, dust from graders or scrapers leveling the land, and loading or unloading dirt into haul trucks. Each of those activities is calculated differently in CalEEMod based on the number of acres traversed by the grading equipment. Only some pieces of equipment generate fugitive dust in CalEEMod. The CalEEMod manual identifies various equipment and the acreage disturbed in an 8-hour day:

Crawler tractors, graders, and rubber tired dozers: 0.5 acres per 8-hour day; and Scrapers: 1 acre per 8-hour day. Therefore, the following acres are the quantity disturbed per day, per phase, according to the acreage disturbed quantities listed above:

Site Preparation = 3.5 acres/day; and
Mass Grading = 4 acres/day.
11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 21, 2012.

Page 2157 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-22
(3) Operation
The CalEEMod model was also used to compile the mass daily emissions (i.e., criteria pollutants) estimates from mobile and area sources, such as on-site consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, etc., that would occur during long-term project operations.

Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. The emissions were estimated using the trip generation rate (9.52 daily trips per dwelling unit per day) from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan. Areasource emissions, such as landscaping equipment, use of consumer products, and coatings were compiled using CalEEMod default assumptions.
b. Thresholds of Significance
CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the local lead agency or applicable air quality management district to be used to assess the impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining significance for criteria pollutant, air toxics, and odor emissions (1) CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Air Quality)
When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-1);
Threshold 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-2);
Threshold 3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing of emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-3);
Threshold 4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-4); and/or
Threshold 5: Create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-5).

Threshold 6: 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? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-6).

Page 2158 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-23
(2) Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Appendix G, Section III, of the Environmental Checklist Form in the State CEQA Guidelines states that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations regarding air quality impacts. Because of SCAQMD’s regulatory role in the Basin, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies outlined in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations, and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology guidance documents were used in evaluating project impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD construction and operational emissions thresholds identified in Table 4.B-5, SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day), were used for this assessment.

The regional emissions thresholds are based on the daily emissions for the regulated pollutants. The localized significance thresholds appropriate to the project area were obtained from the look-up tables in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for a 5-acre project in Source Receptor Area 22.

While the project site area is larger than 5 acres, the use of the 5-acre thresholds provides for a conservative analysis as the thresholds are directly related to the acreage.12 12 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds were obtained from the SCAQMD look-up tables for a 5-acre project. SCAQMD has provided the “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” The Fact Sheet provides guidance to allow use of the LSTs for larger projects, similar to the proposed project. Therefore, the use of the SCAQMD look-up tables is consistent with SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. The Fact Sheet is available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Table 4.B-5
SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day)
Regional Emissions Thresholds Localized Emission Thresholds a Pollutant Construction Operation Construction
(5 acre)
Operation
(5 acre)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 N/A N/A
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55 270 270
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 1,700 1,700
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 150 150 N/A N/A
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 12 3
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 8 2
Lead (Pb) b 3 3 N/A N/A
a
Localized thresholds derived from SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold tables are based on the project location (SRA 22, Norco/Corona) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor for a 5-acre site. b The project would have no lead emissions sources during the construction or operations period. As such, lead emissions are not evaluated in this analysis.

Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 (as amended); South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations; and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology, (2003, revised 2008).

Page 2159 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-24
(3) Toxic Air Contaminants
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to TACs if:

On-site stationary sources or construction equipment emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of ten in one million or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0.13 Hazardous materials associated with on-site stationary sources result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety.

The project would be occupied primarily by sensitive individuals within a quarter mile of any existing facility that emits air toxic contaminants which could result in a health risk for pollutants identified in District Rule 1401.14
(4) Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Impacts would be significant should project-related traffic volumes cause an exceedance of the California 1- hour or 8-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 parts per million, respectively, at any sensitive receptor location. (5) Odors
Impacts would be significant if the proposed project were to generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people at any sensitive receptor location. c. Project Design Features
The Project would implement project design features that would reduce the potential for air pollutant emissions due to Project construction and operations. The project design features would include, but are not limited to compliance with the California Green Building Standards, as discussed below. California Green Building Standards. On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011. The Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school buildings.

The California Green Building Standards Code does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard which buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212, November 1998. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapter 6 (Determining the Air Quality Significance of a Project), (1993).

Page 2160 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-25
The California Green Building Standards Code (code section in parentheses) requires:

Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two- bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1).

Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space (5.106.4.2).

Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low- emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.6.2 (5.106.5.2).

Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling.

Construction waste. A minimum 50-percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 75 percent for new homes and 80-percent for commercial projects. All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled.

Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods:

1. The installation of water-conserving fixtures or

2. Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4).

Water use savings. 20-percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35 and 40-percent reductions.

Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day.

Irrigation efficiency. Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas.

Materials pollution control. Low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particleboard.

Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Air Quality Plan Conflicts
Threshold 1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact 4.B-1 Project implementation would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. Thus, the project would result in a less than significant impact.

Page 2161 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-26
According to the 1993 SCAQMD Handbook, there are two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP as described below. The first indicator is applicable to the project and provides the basis for which to assess the project’s significance. The second indicator is not applicable to the project and not used in this assessment, but is shown below for informational purposes. 1. Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Project applicability:
applicable and assessed below.

2. As stated in the SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project build-out and phase. The Handbook indicates that key assumptions to use in this analysis are population number and location and a regional housing needs assessment. The parcel-based land use and growth assumptions and inputs used in the Regional Transportation Model run by the SCAG that generated the mobile inventory used by the SCAQMD for AQMP are not available.

Therefore, this indicator is not applicable. Project applicability: not applicable.

Considering the recommended criteria in the SCAQMD’s 1993 Handbook, this analysis utilizes the following criteria to address this potential impact:

Step 1: Project’s contribution to air quality violations (SCAQMD’s first indictor) Step 2: Assumptions in AQMP (SCAQMD’s second indictor)
Step 3: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs Step 1 – Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations: According to the SCAQMD, the project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.15 As is discussed later under Impact 4.B-2, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. If a project’s emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions could cumulatively contribute to an exceedance of a pollutant for which the basin is in nonattainment (ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a monitoring station would not be consistent with the goals of the AQMP, which is to achieve attainment of pollutants. As is discussed under Impact 4.B-2, the project would not exceed the regional significance threshold for any nonattainment pollutant or ozone precursors. Therefore, the project would is consistent with the SCAQMD regional thresholds and is consistent with the AQMP. The project meets this criterion.

Step 2 – Assumptions in AQMP: According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine whether a project is inconsistent with the assumptions 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, (1993), 12-3.

Page 2162 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-27
and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and State air quality standards. If a project is inconsistent, local governments need to consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. Consistency with the AQMP implies that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the national and State air quality standards. To assess the environmental impacts of new or renovated developments accurately, environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios.

Projects that are deemed consistent with the general plan are generally found to be consistent with the AQMP. Since the project’s intended land use is not consistent with the existing non-operational land use, implementation of the project would require amendments to the City’s zoning designations for the project site. However, the project’s proposed single-family residential uses are consistent with the current Rural Residential zoning designation for the project site under the Riverside County Zoning Code, which allows for single-family residential development, though at a lower overall density. In addition, as discussed in Section

4.I, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Further, as discussed in Section 4.K, Population, Housing and Employment, the population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project would be well within the SCAG growth projections for the City, Western Riverside County subregion, and Southern California region. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the adopted SCAQMD AQMP according to this criterion.

Step 3 – Control Measures: This step involves assessing the project’s compliance with the control measures in the AQMP. The 2012 AQMP was adopted on December 7, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the Basin is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the Basin into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update of the Basin’s projections in meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards. The project would comply with applicable rules and regulations enacted as part of the AQMP.

Summary: In summary, the project would comply with applicable rules and regulations and would not impede attainment of the ambient air quality standards because the project’s emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. The project would result in a less than significant impact. (2) Violation of Air Quality Standards
Threshold 2 Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Impact 4.B-2 The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project would generate construction and operational emissions that would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts. (a) Construction
Construction of the project has the potential to result in air quality impacts from the generation emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and vehicle trips from construction workers as they

Page 2163 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-28
travel to and from the project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from site work related to demolition, grading, and cut-and-fill operations. The specific methodology for describing construction- related emission sources is contained within the “Methodology” sub-section above. The CalEEMod model output and worksheets for calculating regional construction-related daily emissions are provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report (refer to Appendix C of this Draft EIR).

As provided in Table 4.B-6, Construction Air Pollutant Emissions, estimated construction-related daily emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional emission thresholds. Therefore, the short-term construction emissions are considered to have less than significant regional impact. (b) Operation
Regional air pollutant emissions associated with project operations would be generated by the on-site consumption of electricity and natural gas, on-site use of solvents and consumer products that release VOC emissions, as well as the operation of on-road vehicles traveling to and from the site. Data provided in the traffic report were used to calculate each of these operational emissions categories. The CalEEMod model output and worksheets for calculating regional operational daily emissions are provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report (refer to Appendix C of this Draft EIR). As shown in Table 4.B-7, Operational Emissions (Summer), regional emissions resulting from operation of the project would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds and are considered less than significant. (3) Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Increase
Threshold 3 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Table 4.B-6
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 5.34 56.98 43.77 0.04 1.18 6.77
Grading 6.89 79.15 52.10 0.06 7.24 4.97
Paving 2.15 22.45 15.67 0.02 1.43 1.21
Building Construction 3.68 29.19 26.02 0.05 3.20 2.09
Architectural Coatings 54.90 1.59 2.59 0.01 0.33 0.16
Maximum Daily Emissions a 54.90 79.15 52.10 0.06 7.24 6.77 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
a
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not summed.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014

Page 2164 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-29
Impact 4.B-3 The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The regional significance analysis for construction and operational emissions demonstrates that emissions would be below the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact according to this criterion and impacts would be less than significant.

The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards made in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier, the project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.16 To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:

1. Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SCAQMD in its comment letters.

2. Summary of projections: the project must be consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations. This is an approach consistent with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA guidelines.

3. Cumulative health impacts: the project must result in less than significant cumulative health effects from the nonattainment pollutants. This approach correlates the significance of the 16 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states “A lead agency may determine that a project's increment-al contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency.” Table 4.B-7
Operational Emissions (Summer)
Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 12.70 0.28 24.09 0.00 0.46 0.46 Energy 0.23 1.97 0.84 0.01 0.16 0.16
Mobile 8.43 23.08 91.35 0.31 21.69 6.08
Maximum Daily Emissions a 21.36 25.33 116.28 0.33 22.31 6.70 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
a
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014

Page 2165 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-30
regional analysis with health effects, consistent with the court decision, Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1219-20.

Step 1 – Regional Analysis: If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically exceeded the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project exceeds the regional threshold for that nonattainment pollutant, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact. The Riverside County portion of the Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 (CAAQS only), and PM2.5. Therefore, if the project exceeds the regional thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5, then it would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for those pollutants. If the project exceeds the regional threshold for NOX or VOC, then it follows that the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone.

Regional emissions include those generated from all onsite and offsite activities. Regional significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD because emissions from projects in the Basin can potentially contribute to the existing emission burden and possibly affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Projects within the Basin region with regional emissions in excess of any of the thresholds presented in Table 4.B-6 (for construction) and Table 4.B-7 (for operation) would be considered to have a significant regional air quality impact.

Construction Regional Emissions: Table 4.B-6 summarizes construction-related emissions (without mitigation). The information shown in Table 4.B-6 indicates that the SCAQMD regional emission thresholds would not be exceeded. Therefore, the short-term construction emissions are considered to have a less than significant regional impact.

Operational Regional Emissions: Operational emissions from emission sources generated both onsite and offsite as derived from CalEEMod are shown in Table 4.B-7 for the summer season. As shown in Table 4.B-7, the project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. The regional significance analysis of construction and operational emissions demonstrates that emissions are below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the project does not contribute to a cumulative impact according to this criterion.

Step 2 – Plan Approach: Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:

The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts is based on a summary of projections analysis. This analysis considers the current CEQA Guidelines, which includes the recent amendments approved by the Natural Resources Agency and effective on March 18, 2010. This analysis is based on the 2003 and 2007 AQMPs. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. When concentrations of ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 exceed the ambient air quality standard, then those sensitive to air pollution (i.e., children, elderly, sick) could experience health

Page 2166 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-31
effects such as decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals, increased mortality risk, and risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans.

Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts may be analyzed using other plans that evaluate relevant cumulative effects. The AQMPs describe and evaluate the future projected emissions sources in the Basin and sets forth a strategy to meet both state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and federal ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the AQMPs are relevant plans for a CEQA cumulative impacts analysis. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for ozone and PM10; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide standard that the Basin has met since 1992. The 2007 AQMP focuses on ozone and PM2.5. The AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, emission inventories, ambient measurements, control strategies, and air quality modeling.

The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the Basin, because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the Basin circulate and are often trapped. The SCAQMD is required to prepare and maintain an AQMP and a SIP to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards (please see discussion regarding State Implementation Plans [SIPs] under Regulatory Framework above). While the SCAQMD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning are necessary to maintain clean air. The SCAQMD evaluated the entire Basin when it developed the AQMP.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program. As identified in Impact 4.B-1, the project would comply with the control measures in the AQMP and the applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. In addition, the project’s emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance thresholds and the analysis contained in Impact 4.B-1 demonstrates that the project is consistent with the most recent AQMP and SIP without mitigation. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact according to this criterion.

Step 3 – Cumulative Health Impacts: The Riverside County portion of the Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as the elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects that were described in Table 4.B-2. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose-response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions indicates that the project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant

Page 2167 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-32
for which the project region is nonattainment and would not result in cumulative health impacts associated with these pollutants. (4) Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Threshold 4 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 4.B-4 Implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during operational or construction activities. Construction and operation of the project would not result in emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds. The project would not cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots. Construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial sources of TAC emissions. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would be less than significant.

The project would contribute to short-term localized air pollutant emissions during construction and long- term localized air pollutant emissions during operations. A discussion of the project’s potential localized construction- and operations-period air quality impacts is provided below. (a) Local Construction Impacts
(i) Construction LSTs
The SCAQMD has developed a set of mass emissions rate look-up tables that can be used to evaluate localized impacts that may result from construction-period emissions. If the on-site emissions from proposed construction activities are below the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) emissions levels found in the LST mass rate look-up tables for the project site’s SRA, then project emissions would not have the potential to cause a significant localized air quality impact.

As discussed previously, mass daily emissions during construction were compiled using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. However, only on-site construction emissions were considered for purposes of comparison with the LST mass rate look-up tables (consistent with SCAQMD LST guidelines, off-site delivery/haul truck activity and employee trips were not considered in the evaluation of localized impacts).

A conservative estimate of the project’s construction-period on-site mass emissions is presented in Table 4.B-8, Localized Significance Analysis (Construction). As provided in Table 4.B-8, construction of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the short-term localized emissions would be considered to have a less than significant localized impact. (ii) Toxic Air Contaminants
The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to DPM associated with heavy equipment operations during site grading activities. Construction equipment would emit DPM, which is a carcinogen.

However, construction would result in short-term emissions of DPM. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 70-year exposure time. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a 70-year lifetime of exposure. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long- term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes

Page 2168 of 3613 ends

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-33
at a location and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Compliance with these standards would reduce emissions of TACs during construction. Based on the temporary and short-term construction schedule and required regulatory compliance, construction impacts would be less than significant (b) Local Operational Impacts
(i) Operational LSTs
The SCAQMD has developed a set of mass emissions rate look-up tables that can be used to evaluate localized impacts that may result from operational-period emissions. If the on-site emissions from proposed operational activities are below the LST emissions levels found in the LST mass rate look-up tables for the project site’s SRA, then project emissions would not have the potential to cause a significant localized air quality impact.

As discussed previously, mass daily emissions during operations were compiled using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. However, only on-site operational emissions were considered for purposes of comparison with the LST mass rate look-up tables (consistent with SCAQMD LST guidelines, off-site mobile source emissions were not considered in the evaluation of localized impacts). A conservative estimate of the project’s operational-period on-site mass emissions is presented in Table 4.B-9, Localized Significance Analysis (Operational). As provided in Table 4.B-9, project would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs during operations. Therefore, the localized emissions would be considered to have a less than significant localized impact.
(ii) CO Hotspot
A CO hot spot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The primary source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from off-site motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project. The CO hot spot analysis Table 4.B-8
Localized Significance Analysis (Construction)
Activity
Onsite Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 56.89 42.63 0.98 6.71
Grading 79.05 50.84 7.02 4.91
Paving 22.39 14.82 1.26 1.16
Building Construction 26.41 18.13 1.78 1.67
Architectural Coating 1.53 1.82 0.09 0.09
Maximum Daily Emissions a 79.05 50.84 7.02 6.71
Localized Significance
Threshold 270 1,700 12 8
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
a
Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014

Page 2169 of 3613 ends

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-34
conducted for the project demonstrated that emissions of CO during operation would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO after incorporation of transportation mitigation measures (see Section 4.M, Transportation, in this Draft EIR). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(iii) Toxic Air Contaminants
The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution,”17 including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses.

These recommendations are assessed as follows.

Heavily traveled roads: CARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.

Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The project does not include the construction or operation of a heavily traveled road. The project site is also not within 500 feet of a freeway or other heavily traveled road. According to the Noise Impact Analysis conducted for the project, a maximum traffic volume of 27,500 average daily trips (ADT) would occur on Green River Road between Serfas Club Drive and Paseo Grande under future year 2035 with project conditions,18 which is well below the volume for a heavily traveled road as defined by CARB. Furthermore, State Route 91 is over 1.5 miles to the north and Interstate 15 is over 3.5 miles to the east of the project site boundary.
17 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, (2005) ES-1. 18 First Carbon Solutions|Michael Brandman Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Skyline Heights Project, City of Corona, California, Table 6, April 2014.

Table 4.B-9
Localized Significance Analysis (Operational)
Activity
Onsite Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.28 24.09 0.46 0.46
Energy 1.97 0.84 0.16 0.16
Maximum Daily Emissions a 2.25 24.93 0.62 0.62
Localized Significance
Threshold 270 1,700 3 2
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
a
The Maximum Daily Emissions accounts for the sum of on-site area and energy source emissions, and excludes off-site mobile source emissions.

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014; PCR Services Corporation, 2014

Page 2170 of 3613 ends

Corona City CouncilJuly 1, 2026

Corona City Council
July 1, 2026