Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-22
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-footwide 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-footwide landscaped parkways. In addition, the main project roadway for development phases I and II (“A” Street or Trudy Way extension), has been designed as a 36 to 40-foot Local roadway.

As indicated above, the Existing With Project scenario assumes planned improvements at three intersections to be implemented as part of the development of the proposed residential project, since the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension is not assumed in the Existing With Project scenario. In addition, the planned intersection and roadway improvements that are assumed in the 2020 With and Without Scenarios could be implemented as part of the development of the Project or by the City as part of the funded improvements for the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The planned improvements if implemented as part of the Project would be considered Project Design Features.

While the intersections of Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway, Border Avenue/“B” Street at Foothill Parkway and “P” Street at Foothill Parkway would operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours in the Existing With Project, Year 2020 With Project, and Year 2035 With Project, in order to provide additional westbound left turn storage on Foothill Parkway at Trudy Way, the existing median on Foothill Parkway would be demolished and restriped to extend the westbound left turn pocket by approximately 50 feet.

Foothill Parkway/”P” Street would have an acceleration lane for the northbound left turn from “A” Street to Foothill Parkway to allow safe egress movement. This planned improvement would be the sole responsibility of the Project if the Project were to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Traffic signals at “B” Street and Foothill Parkway would be modified to allow for Project access.

In addition, the project would include the installation of three (3) traffic calming measures along the roadway segment of “A” Street within the development. The project design features would include the installation of a raised landscaped median adjacent to Lots 53/54, Lots 62/63, and at the easterly project boundary with the existing westerly terminus of Trudy Way, which would also be gated. These calming measures, in addition to on-street parking, would help to reduce traffic speeds within the development by providing raised friction. All-way stop control at the “A” Street intersections with “L” Street and “D” Street would also contribute to the traffic calming along “A” Street. Stop signs, bars and pavement messages are recommended at appropriate intersection approaches as shown in Figures 13-2A and 13-2B of the TIA. No Parking zones would be provided around the three raised landscaped median treatments along “A” Street.

With regard to construction, all construction staging, material and equipment storage, and construction worker parking would occur within the project site boundaries. In addition, 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.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-23
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Intersection Analysis
Threshold 1: A significant intersection impact would occur if the project would reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections for which LOS E is acceptable. 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.

Existing With Project, 2020 With Project and 2035 With Project Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Intersection
Existing With
Project
2020 With
Project
2035 With
Project Mitigation Measures

3. Paseo
Grande/Onta
rio Avenue
A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
-- -- 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.

4. Border
Avenue/Onta
rio Avenue
P.M.: LOS F P.M.: LOS E A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
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. 10. Elysia Street/Footh
ill Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
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. 11. Trudy
Way/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
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.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-24
(a) Construction Impacts
Construction trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon may result in some minor traffic delays; potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles may create a temporary/short-term impact to vehicles using the street system in the immediate area in the morning and afternoon hours. However, it should be noted that all construction employee parking would occur within the project site boundaries, as would all staging and equipment and material storage. While construction worker trips would generally occur in the early morning and late afternoon hours, truck trips for material and equipment deliveries would occur as needed throughout the day, which would minimize potential traffic disruptions associated with truck traffic during peak hours. Additionally, as no off-site soil export (or import) would be required for site grading activities, as all earthwork would be balanced on-site, no soil haul truck traffic would result from grading activities. It is further anticipated that construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project would be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities for the proposed project, and this roadway would provide direct access for construction workers vehicles and minimize temporary traffic effects on other parts of the City’s traffic system. Finally, as the project would be constructed in three phases, the incremental traffic effects of each development phase would only occur during temporary periods while construction is underway, and as discussed below, all planned improvements would be implemented and all project-related traffic system improvements (included as mitigation measures) would be required to be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project (i.e., prior to Phase 1 of the project), which would preclude the potential for significant construction-related traffic effects associated with subsequent phases. Furthermore, as indicated above, the Applicant would implement a Construction Management Plan to minimize construction traffic impacts upon the local circulation system. The Construction Management Plan would be developed in coordination with, and subject to approval from, the City of Corona Traffic Engineer. With the implementation of the Construction Management Plan, traffic impacts during construction would be less than significant.
(2) Operational Impacts
(a) Existing With Project
Table 4.M-7, Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary, summarizes the peak hour LOS results at the 14 study intersections for existing traffic conditions, with and without the project.

The first column (1) presents a summary of Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic conditions, which are discussed above under Environmental Setting. The second column (2) presents Existing With Project traffic conditions. The third column (3) indicates whether the traffic associated with the project would have a significant impact based on the intersection significance threshold. The fourth column (4) presents the Level of Service with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements, if necessary. (Mitigation Measures are discussed below in Subsection 4.) As shown in Table 4.M-7, the Existing With Project scenario would result in significant impacts at the following two intersections during the A.M. and/or P.M. peak hours:

3. Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue: LOS E during the A.M. peak hour; LOS F during the P.M. peak hour

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS F during the P.M. peak hour Mitigation measures are recommended for improvements at each of the above intersections. The mitigation measures would require: 1) the installation of a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation at Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection; and 2) the installation of a traffic signal designed for two-phase

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-25
operation and restriping of the lanes at Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue intersection. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

While improvements are recommended at the Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, the traffic signal is not needed under the Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The traffic volumes at this intersection would be reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Therefore, if the project were to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, the mitigation measure would be necessary to reduce the impacts at the Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection to a less than significant level. (b) Year 2020
Table 4.M-8, Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary, summarizes the 2020 peak hour LOS results at the 14 study intersections for 2020 With and Without the project. The first column (1) is provided for background and presents a summary of Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic conditions.

The second column (2) presents 2020 Without Project. The third column (3) provides the 2020 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) indicates whether the traffic associated with 2020 With Project

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-26 Table 4.M-7
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya Key Intersection Control
Type
Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Existing
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Existing
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

1. Serfas Club Drive at 6-PhaseD
AM 33.8 C 34.2 C No -- -- Green River Road Traffic Signal PM 34.4 C 34.4 C No -- -- 2. Paseo Grande at Uncontrolled -- AM N/A N/A N/A N/A No -- -- Green River Roadb PM N/A N/A N/A N/A No -- -- 3. Paseo Grande at All – Way D AM 34.2 D 46.6 E Yes 19.7 B
Ontario Avenuec Stop PM 40.0 E 62.0 F Yes 15.1 B

4. Border Avenue at All – Way DAM 25.5 D 28.7 D No 15.2 B Ontario Avenue Stop PM 69.9 F 76.1 F Yes 10.8 B

5. Lincoln Avenue at 8-Phase D
AM 43.5 D 43.4 D No -- -- Ontario Avenue Traffic Signal PM 39.5 D 39.8 D No -- -- 6. Border Avenue at All – Way D AM 7.3 A 7.6 A No -- -- Mesquite Lane Stop PM 7.5 A 8.0 A No -- -- 7.

Border Avenue at All – Way DAM 7.1 A 7.5 A No -- -- Emerson Drive Stop PM 7.3 A 7.7 A No -- -- 8.

Border Avenue at All – Way DAM 6.9 A 7.4 A No -- -- Peacock Lane Stop PM 7.0 A 7.6 A No -- -- 9. Lincoln Avenue at 8-Phase D AM 26.3 C 27.2 C No -- -- Foothill Parkway Traffic Signal PM 27.7 C 28.7 C No -- -- 10. Elysia Street at All – Way D AM 9.2 A 9.6 A No -- -- Foothill Parkway Stop PM 8.9 A 9.5 A No -- -- 11. Trudy Way at One – Way D AM 8.5 A 9.1 A No -- -- Foothill Parkway Stop PM 8.6 A 9.1 A No -- -- 12. Chase Drive at Does Not -- AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Foothill Parkwayd Exist PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13. Border Avenue/“B” Street at 6-Phase D AM -- -- 25.2 C No -- -- Foothill Parkwaye
Traffic Signal f PM -- -- 25.0 C No -- --

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
Table 4.M-7 (Continued)
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-27 Key Intersection
Control
Type
Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Existing
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Existing
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

14. “P” Street at One – Way D
AM -- -- 8.4 A No -- -- Foothill Parkwaye Stopg PM -- -- 8.4 A No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for the LOS definitions Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standard a Appendix E of the TIA contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. b This intersection does not have any delay since it is currently uncontrolled with only west and north legs. However, it is planned to be signalized in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. c It should be noted that although the impacted intersection of Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue has been identified to be signalized to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not needed under the cumulative Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The future traffic volumes at this intersection will be significantly reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Consequently, existing traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway, accordingly. d Intersection currently does not exist. e
Intersection currently does not exist. f
In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be a 6-Phase Traffic Signal under the “With” Project traffic conditions. g In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be One-Way Stop-Controlled under the “With” Project traffic conditions.

Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2013

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-28
would have a significant impact based on the intersection significance threshold. The fifth column (5) presents 2020 With Project with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements. (Mitigation Measures are discussed below in Section 4, below.)
As indicated above, the planned improvements at Paseo Grande at Green River Road/Foothill Parkway [Extension], Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway, Chase Drive at Foothill Parkway, “P” Street at Foothill Parkway, and Border Avenue at Foothill Parkway have been included in the background traffic conditions for Year 2020. In addition, as a result of the Foothill Parkway Extension project, it was assumed that a substantial portion of vehicles currently travelling along Paseo Grande to/from Ontario Avenue would travel along Foothill Parkway in the future. Therefore, for the Year 2020 analysis a portion of the traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway.

Year 2020 Without Project
As shown in Table 4.M-8, the 2020 Without Project traffic would result in a significant impact at the following study intersection during the P.M. peak hour:

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS E during the P.M. peak hour (c) Year 2035
Table 4.M-9, Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary, , summarizes the 2035 peak hour LOS results at the 14 study intersections for 2035 With and Without the project. The first column (1) is provided for background and presents a summary of Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic conditions.

The second column (2) presents 2035 Without Project and the third column (3) provides the 2035 With Project traffic conditions. The fourth column (4) indicates whether the traffic associated with 2035 With Project would have a significant impact based on the intersection significance threshold. The fifth column (5) presents 2035 With Project with the implementation of traffic mitigation improvements.

As indicated above, planned improvements at Paseo Grande at Green River Road/Foothill Parkway [Extension], Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway, Chase Drive at Foothill Parkway, “P” Street at Foothill Parkway, and Border Avenue at Foothill Parkway have been included in the background traffic conditions for Year 2035. In addition, as a result of the Foothill Parkway Extension project, it was assumed that a substantial portion of vehicles currently travelling along Paseo Grande to/from Ontario Avenue would travel along Foothill Parkway in the future. Therefore, traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to future Foothill Parkway, accordingly, and are reflected in the Year 2035 traffic analysis.

Year 2035 Without Project
As shown in Table 4.M-9, the 2035 Without Project traffic would result in significant impacts at the following three study intersections during the A.M. and/or P.M. peak hour:

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS F during the P.M. peak hour

10. Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway: LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours

11. Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-29 Table 4.M-8
Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya Key Intersection Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2020
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

1. Serfas Club Drive at D
AM 33.8 C 27.2 C 27.5 C No -- -- Green River Road PM 34.4 C 30.3 C 30.5 C No -- -- 2.

Paseo Grande at
D
AM N/A N/A 26.8 C 26.4 C No -- -- Green River Road/Foothill Pkwyb PM N/A N/A 27.2 C 27.1 C No -- -- 3.

Paseo Grande at
D
AM 34.2 D 10.4 B 10.4 B No -- -- Ontario Avenuec PM 40.0 E 10.2 B 10.3 B No -- -- 4.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 25.5 D 18.0 C 18.2 C No 15.3 B
Ontario Avenue PM 69.9 F 36.0 E 37.5 E Yes 10.3 B

5. Lincoln Avenue at D
AM 43.5 D 39.3 D 39.3 D No -- -- Ontario Avenue PM 39.5 D 38.1 D 38.1 D No -- -- 6. Border Avenue at D
AM 7.3 A 7.8 A 7.8 A No -- -- Mesquite Lane PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A No -- -- 7.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 7.1 A 7.3 A 7.3 A No -- -- Emerson Drive PM 7.3 A 7.5 A 7.5 A No -- -- 8.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 6.9 A 7.1 A 7.2 A No -- -- Peacock Lane PM 7.0 A 7.3 A 7.3 A No -- -- 9. Lincoln Avenue at D
AM 26.3 C 26.7 C 27.7 C No -- -- Foothill Parkway PM 27.7 C 28.5 C 28.6 C No -- -- 10.

Elysia Street at DAM 9.2 A 10.8 B 11.6 B No -- -- Foothill Parkway PM 8.9 A 10.5 B 11.7 B No -- -- 11. Trudy Way at D AM 8.5 A 10.4 B 11.1 B No -- -- Foothill Parkway PM 8.6 A 11.8 B 13.6 B No -- -- 12. Chase Drive at D
AM -- -- 15.9 B 16.3 B No -- -- Foothill Parkwayd PM -- -- 17.5 B 17.7 B No -- -- 13. Border Avenue/“B” Street at D AM -- -- 8.8 A 23.6 C No -- -- Foothill Parkwaye PM -- -- 9.4 A 22.6 C No -- --

4.M. Transportation December 2015
Table 4.M-8 (Continued)
Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-30 Key Intersection
Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2020
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

14. “P” Street at D
AM -- -- -- -- 9.7 A No -- -- Foothill Parkwayf PM -- -- -- -- 10.4 B No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for the LOS definitions Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standards a Appendices E and F of the TIA contain the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. b Under Existing traffic conditions, this intersection does not have any delay since it is currently uncontrolled with only west and north legs. However, it is planned to be signalized in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. These improvements have been assumed in the background traffic conditions for Year 2020 traffic conditions. c Although the impacted intersection of Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue has been identified to be signalized to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not needed under the cumulative Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The future traffic volumes at this intersection will be significantly reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Consequently, existing traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway, accordingly. d
Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2020 background traffic conditions. e Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 3-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 3-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2020 background traffic conditions. Further, in conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is proposed to add the south leg and planned to be a 6 Traffic Signal under the Year 2020 With Project traffic conditions f Intersection currently does not exist. In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be One-Way Stop-Controlled under the “With” Project traffic conditions
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2013

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-31 Table 4.M-9
Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya Key Intersection Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2035
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

1. Serfas Club Drive at D
AM 33.8 C 32.0 C 33.5 C No -- -- Green River Road PM 34.4 C 39.4 D 40.6 D No -- -- 2.

Paseo Grande at
D
AM N/A N/A 28.2 C 28.8 C No -- -- Green River Road/Foothill Pkwyb PM N/A N/A 29.1 C 29.9 C No -- -- 3.

Paseo Grande at
D
AM 34.2 D 11.6 B 11.7 B No -- -- Ontario Avenuec PM 40.0 E 11.4 B 11.5 B No -- -- 4.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 25.5 D 34.1 D 35.2 E Yes 16.0 B
Ontario Avenue PM 69.9 F 86.9 F 89.4 F Yes 11.8 B

5. Lincoln Avenue at D
AM 43.5 D 46.9 D 47.2 D No -- -- Ontario Avenue PM 39.5 D 52.0 D 52.3 D No -- -- 6. Border Avenue at D
AM 7.3 A 10.0 B 10.1 B No -- -- Mesquite Lane PM 7.5 A 7.6 A 7.7 A No -- -- 7.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 7.1 A 7.6 A 7.7 A No -- -- Emerson Drive PM 7.3 A 8.0 A 8.1 A No -- -- 8.

Border Avenue at
D
AM 6.9 A 7.5 A 7.6 A No -- -- Peacock Lane PM 7.0 A 7.8 A 7.9 A No -- -- 9. Lincoln Avenue at D
AM 26.3 C 48.7 D 53.7 D No -- -- Foothill Parkway PM 27.7 C 42.1 D 44.0 D No -- -- 10. Elysia Street at D AM 9.2 A 131.6 F 149.5 F Yes 17.5 B
Foothill Parkway PM 8.9 A 105.8 F 137.7 F Yes 16.4 B

11. Trudy Way at D
AM 8.5 A 257.0 F 427.4 F Yes 25.5 C
Foothill Parkway PM 8.6 A OVRFL F OVRFL F Yes 20.3 C

12. Chase Drive at D
AM -- -- 20.9 C 21.1 C No -- -- Foothill Parkwayd PM -- -- 19.5 B 20.0 B No -- -- 13. Border Avenue/“B” Street at D AM -- -- 12.7 B 24.7 C No -- -- Foothill Parkwaye PM -- -- 12.3 B 21.7 C No -- --

4.M. Transportation December 2015
Table 4.M-9 (Continued)
Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-32 Key Intersection
Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2035
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

14. “P” Street at D
AM -- -- -- -- 13.8 B No -- -- Foothill Parkwayf PM -- -- -- -- 17.9 C No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for the LOS definitions Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standards a Appendices E and G of the TIA contain the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. b Under Existing traffic conditions, this intersection does not have any delay since it is currently uncontrolled with only west and north legs. However, it is planned to be signalized in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. These improvements have been assumed in the background traffic conditions for Year 2035 traffic conditions. c Although the impacted intersection of Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue has been identified to be signalized to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not needed under the cumulative Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The future traffic volumes at this intersection will be significantly reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Consequently, existing traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway, accordingly. d
Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2035 background traffic conditions. e Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 3-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 3-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2035 background traffic conditions. Further, in conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is proposed to add the south leg and planned to be a 6 Traffic Signal under the Year 2035 With Project traffic conditions f Intersection currently does not exist. In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be One-Way Stop-Controlled under the “With” Project traffic conditions
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2013

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-33
Year 2035 With Project
As shown in Table 4.M-9, the 2035 With Project traffic would result in significant impacts at the following three study intersections during the A.M. and/or P.M. peak hour:

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS E during the A.M. peak hour; LOS F during the P.M. peak hour

10. Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway: LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours

11. Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours Mitigation measures are recommended for improvements at each of the above intersection. The mitigation measures would require: 1) the installation of a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation and restriping of eastbound and westbound lanes at Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue; 2) installation of a traffic signal designed for five-phase operation at Elysia Street/Foothill Parkway; and installation of a traffic signal designed for three-phase operation at Trudy Way/Foothill Parkway. With the installation of the traffic signals and restriping, the impacted intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS and therefore, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
(2) Roadway Segment Analysis
Threshold 2: A significant impact would occur to a roadway segment if the project would reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of the segment of Green River Road west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS. Impact 4.M-2 Under Existing With Project conditions, a significant impact would occur on Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road if the project were to be developed prior to the completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension. In the event that were to occur, with the implementation of a mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The project would result in less than significant impacts to roadway segments under both Year 2020 and Year 2035 scenarios. In addition, all of the roadways within the subdivision have been designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) that would occur on each of the segments. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. (a) Existing With Project The Existing With Project scenario (see Table 7-2 of the TIA) would result in adverse levels of service in the daily screening analysis on the following roadway segment:

4. Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: LOS F A mitigation measure is recommended for improvements on the roadway segment, which would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. While the improvements would be necessary to reduce significant impacts under the Exiting With Project scenario, the future traffic volumes would be substantially reduced as a result of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east- west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue.

Therefore, the improvements that would occur with the implementation of the mitigation measure would not be needed under the Year 2020 and Year 2035 scenarios.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-34
(b) Year 2020
As shown in Table 8-2 of the TIA, in the 2020 Without and With Project scenarios all of the 11 roadway segments would operate at acceptable levels of service. (c) Year 2035
As shown in Table 9-2 of the TIA, in the 2035 Without and With Project scenarios all of the 11 roadway segments would operate at acceptable levels of service. (d) Internal Roadway Segments
The TIA includes an evaluation of site access and on-site site roadways. “B” Street, which is the primary roadway for Phase I, would be constructed as a 44-foot wide Collector roadway and would connect to the future Foothill Parkway. B Street is expected to carry a maximum of approximately 1,500 average daily trips (ADT), which is well within the City of Corona’s Collector roadway ADT LOS C criteria of 10,400 vehicles per day. In addition, the primary roadway “A” Street or Trudy Way extension, which would provide the primary access for Phases I & II, would be constructed as a 36 to 40-foot Local roadway. Although the width was reduced from the standard 40 feet at some locations, the reduced 36-foot roadway width was agreed upon by the City’s Traffic Engineering Section and the applicant’s traffic engineer as it would reduce vehicle speeds and facilitate safer emergency vehicle and trash truck access. “A” Street is expected to carry between 600 and 1,200 ADT, which is within the recommended maximum of 1,500 ADT for Local street roadways. “P” Street, which would provide the primary access for Phase III, would be constructed as a 64-foot wide divided Collector roadway that would connect to the future Foothill Parkway. P Street is expected to carry a maximum of approximately 450 ADT, which is well within the City of Corona’s Collector roadway ADT LOS C criteria of 10,400 vehicles per day. All of the remaining roadways within the development have been designed as 36-foot wide local low-volume residential streets, with parking on both sides, and are expected to carry less than the recommended Local street criteria of 500 ADT. Since these roadway segments within the subdivision have been designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) that would occur on the segments, no significant impacts would occur on the internal roadway segments. (3) Design Features
Threshold 3: The project would result in a significant impact if the project would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.

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 result in a substantial increase in hazards. The roadway design of the project would result in less than significant Impacts.

The project would not result in modifications to the local street network. Vehicular access to the proposed subdivision would be from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which would be constructed along the northeast side of the site. It should be noted that, as discussed previously, it is expected that construction of the proposed project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project is completed as this roadway would provide primary vehicular access for all project components. The alignment of the

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-35
Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would require the dedication of approximately 21.38 acres from the 270.9-acre project site. Access to the south edge of the 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 Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension has been designed to ensure safety and does not include any hazardous design features.

The TIA includes an evaluation of site access and internal circulation, including an evaluation of sight distance at the intersections. As indicated in Impact 4.M-2 above, all of the roadways within the subdivision have been designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) that would occur on the segments. As indicated in the Project Design Features subsection above, the project would include the installation of three traffic calming measures along the roadway segment of “A” Street within the development. The project design features would include the installation of a raised landscaped median adjacent to Lots 53/54, Lots 62/63, and at the easterly project boundary with the existing westerly terminus of Trudy Way, which would also be gated. The calming measures, in addition to on-street parking, would help to reduce traffic speeds within the development by providing raised friction. All-way stop control at the “A” Street intersections with “L” Street and “D” Street would also contribute to the traffic calming along “A” Street. For safety, No Parking zones would be provided around the three raised landscaped median treatments along “A” Street. Finally, stop signs, bars and pavement messages would be implemented at appropriate intersection approaches as shown in Figures 13-2A and 13-2B of the TIA. With the implementation of the Project Design Features, including traffic calming measures, and stop signs, bars and pavement messages, the roadways would not create hazardous conditions and no significant impacts with regard to design features would occur.

Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.
(4) Emergency Access
Threshold 4: The project would result in a significant impact if the project would result in inadequate emergency access.

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.

The internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City requirements. As discussed under Impact 4.M-2, the internal roadways would be constructed to appropriate widths to accommodate the projected traffic and would not create hazardous circumstances. In addition, as discussed under Impact 4.M- 1, with the implementation of mitigation measures the project would not result in significant impacts at intersections or on roadway segments within the study area. The site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City of Corona Department of Public Works and the City’s Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in accordance with City requirements. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to emergency access.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-36
(5) Parking
Threshold 5: The project would result in a significant impact if the project would result in insufficient off- street parking that would not comply with the City of Corona parking requirements. Impact 4.M-5: The project would provide parking within garages in each of the single family residences. In addition, parking would be provided on some of the proposed streets. Therefore, the project would provide sufficient parking in compliance with the City of Corona parking requirements.

It is anticipated that each of the proposed future residences would include at a minimum a two-car garage, pursuant to CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of spaces required), which requires two covered spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling unit. In addition, parking would be provided on some of the proposed streets. Development of the residences would comply with the City’s parking requirements.

Therefore, the project would provide sufficient parking in compliance with the City of Corona parking requirements and thus impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be necessary.
(6) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
Threshold 6: The project would result in a significant impact if the project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

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.

Table 4.M-10, Consistency Analysis with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City’s Circulation Element, provides a comparison of the project with the applicable goals of the City’s General Plan relative to transportation. As indicated in Table 4.M-10, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative transportation. In addition, the project would not decrease the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative construction traffic impacts would occur if construction traffic from related projects would impact the same streets and access points as the proposed project. There are no related projects within the immediate vicinity of the site, and as such the potential for cumulative construction traffic impacts is considered remote. The TIA, which is summarized above, contains two future year scenarios, Year 2020 and Year 2035, which both include traffic generated by other development projects. These two scenarios represent a near-term and long-term cumulative analysis. The TIA was conducted using the City’s travel demand model developed by LSA Associates, Inc. for the City of Corona Circulation Element Update. The Year 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic volume forecasts were obtained through utilization of the City’s model, which is based on

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-37 Table 4.M-10
Consistency Analysis with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City’s Circulation Element Goals and Policies Consistency
Infrastructure and Public Services – Circulation
Goal 6.1 – Provide a system of streets that meets the
needs of current and future residents and
businesses, and facilitates the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the City,
while accommodating future growth consistent with
the Land Use Element.

Consistent. A TIA was prepared for the project. The project would include the construction of internal roadways within the subdivision. The roadways would be designed in compliance with the City’s requirements and would accommodate the projected average daily traffic. In addition, the project would include the installation of planned roadway and intersection improvements as discussed above. The analysis assumes the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Expansion in the future scenarios. Based on the TIA, the proposed system of streets within the subdivision would meet the future demand and would provide safe and efficient movement of people. With the implementation of the mitigation measures the project would result in less than significant impacts on intersections and roadway segments.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with the goal.

Policy 6.1.6 – Maintain Level of Service D or better
on arterial streets wherever possible. At some key
locations, such as at heavily traveled freeway
interchanges, LOS E may be adopted as the
acceptable standard, on a case-by-case basis.

Locations that may warrant the LOS E standard
include Lincoln Avenue at SR-91, Main Street at SR- 91, McKinley Avenue at SR-91, Hidden Valley Parkway at I-15, Cajalco Road at I-15 and Weirick
Road at I-15. A higher standard such as Level of
Service C or better may be adopted for local and
collector streets in residential areas.

Consistent. The proposed project would require the installation of roadway and intersection improvements to minimize impacts on affected roadways and intersections, as summarized above and described in the TIA. With the implementation of the project design features and mitigation measures the project would result in less than significant impacts on intersections and roadway segments. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the goal.

Policy 6.1.10 – Design secondary, local and
collector streets to discourage their use as through
traffic routes. Utilize residential neighborhood
traffic control techniques to mitigate cut-through
traffic impacts on residential streets. Consider
adoption of a formalized neighborhood traffic
control program.

Consistent. As indicated above, all of the roadways within the subdivision have been designed to accommodate the ADT that would occur on the segments. The project would include the installation of three traffic calming measures, and control techniques to provide safe conditions within the subdivision. Given the site location and orientation relative to other developments, cut-through traffic would not occur. Therefore, the project would comply with this policy.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
Table 4.M-10 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-38 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 6.1.11 – Require that proposals for major
new developments include a traffic impact analysis
that identifies measures to mitigate the traffic
impacts from the new development, including
cumulative impacts.

Consistent. See Policy 6.1.6. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project by LLG and is summarized in this section and contained in Appendix K of this EIR.

Policy 6.1.12 – Provide all residential, commercial,
and industrial areas with efficient and safe access
for emergency vehicles.

Consistent. As discussed under Impact 4.M-4 above, 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. Therefore, impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant and the project would not conflict with this policy.

Policy 6.1.13 – Consider the effects on
transportation systems of public utility
improvements, including extension of underground
pipelines and overhead transmission lines, and
associated utility rights-of-way.

Consistent. The City would review and approve all proposed improvements to ensure that all improvements would be consistent with City requirements. The project would not conflict with this policy.

Policy 6.1.14 – Ensure that, to the extent possible,
all pipelines and electrical transmission lines are
placed underground.

Consistent. All proposed utility installations would be undergrounded, in accordance with direction from the City’s Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering. Policy 6.1.19 – At locations where intersection level of service falls below LOS D (To LOS E or F), or is
anticipated to fall below LOS D in the future based
on studies, implement intersection improvements
that will provide additional capacity and require
developers of adjacent parcels to provide right-ofway setbacks sufficient to accommodate the “maximum feasible intersection” configuration. The
maximum feasible intersection configuration on the
approaches to a Major Arterial will include up to
three lanes for through traffic, dual left turn lanes
and an exclusive right turn lane. The maximum
Consistent. See Policy 6.1.6.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
Table 4.M-10 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-39 Goals and Policies Consistency
feasible intersection configuration at Secondary
Arterial intersection approaches will include up to
two lanes for through traffic, dual left-turn lanes,
and an exclusive right-turn lane. In some locations,
additional capacity may be needed, such as dual
right turn lanes or an additional through lane. The
need for those additional improvements shall be
determined by project-specific traffic studies.

Goal 6.3 – Maximize the efficiency of the circulation
system through the use of transportation system
management strategies. Reduce total vehicular
miles traveled in Corona, including the development
and improvement of alternative transportation modes, the reduction of the number of trips generated, and the reduction in trip distances.

Consistent. Figure 16, Existing and Proposed Bike Trails, of the City’s General Plan shows a Planned Class III bike trail on Border Avenue and a Planned Class II bike trail on the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The project would not conflict with the implementation of the planned bike trials.

Policy 6.3.2 – Implement intersection capacity
improvements where feasible and justified by traffic
demands.

Consistent. A TIA was prepared for the project. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce significant impacts that were identified in the TIA. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 6.5.2–Maintain existing pedestrian facilities
and encourage new development to provide
walkways between and through developments.

Consistent. The project would provide sidewalks within the right-of-way for the streets. Plans would be reviewed by the City. As such, the project would not conflict with the policy.

Policy 6.5.4 – Develop bicycle routes in accordance
with the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan and
implement other elements of the Plan. Consistent. See Goal 6.3 above.

Policy 6.5.6 – Encourage new and existing
development to provide accessible and secure areas
for bicycle storage.

Consistent. As a proposed residential subdivision, bicycle parking would be provided at each residence. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the policy.

Goal 6.6 – Provide an adequate supply of convenient
parking for all developments in the City, in a manner
that is consistent with the goals of managing
transportation demand.

Consistent. Parking would be provided in garages developed in association with each single family residence. All traffic and parking plans would be reviewed and approved by the Corona Traffic Engineering Division and comply with all City requirements. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the policy.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
Table 4.M-10 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-40 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 6.6.1 – Require new developments to
provide adequate off-street parking in compliance
with Corona Municipal Code Chapter 17-76. Consistent. See Goal 6.6 above.

Policy 6.8.1 – Require new development to mitigate
the traffic and circulation impacts it is creating in
accordance with the transportation improvement
needs described in this Circulation Element.

Consistent. Based on the TIA that was prepared for the project, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce significant impacts that were identified. Thus, the project would be consistent with this policy. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-41
data from the Revised Travel Demand Model of the City of Corona’s General Plan, with selected regional projects from the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) added as well as the Riverside County to Orange County connection project. Thus, the model provides the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic conditions.

The Year 2020 Without Project traffic volumes were obtained by interpolating between the Existing and Year 2035 Without Project traffic volumes, as well as reducing the Year 2035 Without Project traffic volumes by fifteen percent (15%) [one percent (1%) per year for fifteen (15) years].

Traffic conditions in Year 2020 Without Project would result in a significant impact during the P.M. peak hour at Intersection 4. Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue. The Year 2020 With Project scenario indicates that the project would contribute to a significant impact during the P.M. peak hour at that intersection. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, the significantly impacted intersection would operate at acceptable levels.

Traffic conditions in Year 2035 Without Project would result in a significant impact during the P.M. peak hour at Intersection 4. Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue as well as significant impacts during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours at Intersection 10. Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway and Intersection 11. Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway. The Year 2035 With Project scenario indicates that the project would contribute to a significant impact during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours at all three intersections. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the three significantly impacted intersections would operate at acceptable levels.

With regard to roadway segments, the cumulative analyses (Year 2020 With and Without Project and Year 2035 With and Without Project scenarios) would not result in adverse levels of service on any of the roadway segments analyzed within the study area. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

As related to alternative transportation and public transit, the proposed project and other related projects and cumulative background growth would increase the demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and bus and other public transit services (e.g., Metrolink). However, related projects would implement TRPs pursuant to the City’s TDM program (CMC Chapter 11.02), which would include, among other features, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would incrementally reduce vehicle trips, as applicable.

Additionally, public transit providers such as RTA, Corona Cruiser, and Metrolink monitor ridership and demand for public transit, and periodically expand or reduce service and facilities accordingly such that adequate transit services are provided in response to changing conditions. As such, as cumulative development in the area occurs, these agencies would expand services as necessary to accommodate the additional growth; therefore, cumulative impacts to alternative transportation and public transit would be less than significant.

With regard to parking and access, the project would provide sufficient parking within the subdivision and therefore, would result in a less than significant impact with regard to parking. In addition, the access evaluation indicated that the project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to site access.

It is anticipated that related projects would be subject to review by either the City of Corona to ensure that adequate parking and access would be provided and maintained for each of the related projects. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-42

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
a. Intersections
Based on the analysis above, the project would result in significant traffic impacts in the Existing With Project, 2020 With Project and 2035 With Project scenarios at the following three intersections during the A.M. or P.M. peak hours:

Intersection Existing With Project 2020 With Project 2035 With Project Mitigation
Measures

3. Paseo
Grande/Ontario
Avenue
A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
-- -- 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.

4. Border
Avenue/Ontario
Avenue
P.M.: LOS F P.M.: LOS E A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
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 leftPage 2504 of 3613
December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-43
Intersection Existing With Project 2020 With Project 2035 With Project Mitigation
Measures
turn lane and a
shared through- right turn lane. 10. Elysia
Street/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
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.

11. Trudy
Way/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
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.

Therefore, the following mitigation measures, which would also become conditions of approval for the project and would be required to be implemented prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, are recommended for the Existing With Project, 2020 With Project and 2035 With Project scenarios:

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.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-44
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. b. Roadway Segments 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 satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With the implementation of the mitigation measures, as appropriate, significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure TR-1 recommends improvements at the Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions. However, the traffic signal is not needed under the Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions since the traffic volumes at this intersection would be reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. However, in the unlikely event that the project was to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, the mitigation measure would be necessary to reduce the impacts at the Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection to a less than significant level.

With regard to Mitigation Measure TR-2, the intersection of Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue is in the City’s Fee Program as a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City.

Mitigation Measure TR-5 recommends improvements on Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road. While the improvements would be necessary to reduce significant impacts under the Existing With Project scenario, the future traffic volumes would be substantially reduced as a result of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. However, although not expected to occur, in the unlikely event that the project was to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, the mitigation measure would be necessary to reduce the impacts on the roadway segment to a less than significant level.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
N. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on utilities and service systems that serve the project site. The section evaluates whether the project’s estimated water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation would be accommodated by existing and proposed infrastructure, treatment facilities, and service systems. Existing conditions are described as well as the project’s consistency with relevant plans, ordinances and regulations. Information is this section is based on correspondence with the City of Corona Department of Water and Power (“CDWP”), the City of Corona Public Works Department, and the Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”), as well as information and findings obtained in the Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project (“Water Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15, 2014; the Preliminary Reclaimed Water Report (“Reclaimed Water Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated January 16, 2014; the Preliminary Wastewater Report (“Wastewater Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15, 2014; the City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”), prepared by Carollo Engineers, dated April 2012; the City of Corona General Plan (“General Plan”), prepared by EIP Associates, adopted March 17, 2004; and the City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report (“Technical Background Report”), prepared by EIP Associates, dated March 2004. Letters of correspondence with various public agencies and the Water Report, Reclaimed Water Report, and Wastewater Report are located in Appendices L, of this Draft EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) City of Corona Water Supply1 Currently, the CDWP provides municipal water service to 154,627 persons through approximately 44,330 domestic service connections to a service area of approximately 39 square miles. This area includes approximately 32 square miles within the City’s municipal area, and seven square miles within the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) in Riverside County. The City’s water system obtains potable water from two sources: groundwater and imported water. A separate reclaimed water system is available for landscape irrigation and some industrial and dual plumbing uses. The City’s reclaimed water distribution system currently consists of approximately 40 miles of pipeline with two gravity storage reservoirs, one pumped storage reservoir, four booster pump stations, and two pressure reducing stations. Groundwater is the primary source for potable water pumped from the Temescal, Bedford, and Coldwater Sub-Basins. The Temescal sub-basin is a Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) defined sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, bounded on the north by the Chino sub-basin and the south by the Elsinore Groundwater Basin. The Bedford and Coldwater Sub-Basins underlie the City’s service area. The City’s imported water supplier is the Western Municipal Water District (“WMWD”), a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”). Metropolitan’s imported water originates from the Colorado River Aqueduct (“CRA”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”). Treated imported water from 1 City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-2
Metropolitan is delivered via a single imported water connection to the City’s Mills Transmission Pipeline.

Untreated imported water from Metropolitan is delivered to the City via three imported water connections on Metropolitan’s Lower Feeder, the City’s Lester Water Treatment Plant (“WTP”), Sierra del Oro WTP, and Green River WTP. For the past five years, total water supply has averaged 41,528 acre-feet per year (“AFY”), not including reclaimed water. In 2010, 19,218 acre-feet (“AF”) came from groundwater sources (excluding treatment losses) and 13,427 AF from imported water supplies (excluding wheeled supply to Norco) for a total potable water supply of 32,645 AF. Table 4.N-1, Current and Projected Water Supply (AFY) shows the current and projected water supply from each water source.

The City maintains 23 active groundwater wells, eight supplying the Temescal Desalter, 13 directly supplying the potable water distribution system, and two that are inactive, with a total storage volume of

45.8 million gallons within 17 potable storage reservoirs. The City’s annual amount of groundwater pumped by sub-basin since the 2005 UWMP is presented in Table 4.N-2, Amount of Groundwater Pumped by the City of Corona.

As shown in Table 4.N-2, the amount of groundwater pumped in the Temescal and Coldwater sub-basins has remained fairly consistent over the past five years. The City does not plan to rely on non-potable wells in the Bedford sub-basin in future years. Table 4.N-3, Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped by the City of Corona breaks down the groundwater supply projections presented in Table 4.N-1. As shown in Table 4.N-3, the amount of groundwater pumped is anticipated to be fairly consistent through 2035.

The City’s potable water distribution system consists of 595 miles of pipeline forming six primary pressure zones that serve elevations varying from a low point at 430 feet (Zone 1) in the Green River area to a high point of 1,640 feet (Zone 6) in South Corona. Pressures to City customers vary from about 40 pounds per square inch (“psi”) to 150 psi. Water is delivered to the various pressure zones by 18 domestic water Table 4.N-1
Current and Projected Water Supply (AFY)
Water Supply Sources
Annual Supply (a,b) (AFY)
2010c 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water (WMWD) 13,427 20,444 18,467 18,775 19,125 19,503 Groundwater 19,218 20,444 18,467 18,775 19,125 19,503
Total Potable 32,645 40,888 36,934 37,551 38,250 39,005 Reclaimed Water 3,308 5,222 6,873 6,873 6,783 6,783
Total 35,953 46,110 43,807 44,423 45,123 45,879
AFY = acre-feet per year; AF = acre-feet; WMWD = Western Municipal Water District; a Based on discussions with City staff and the 2008 GWMP, the City’s supply goal is to maintain a potable supply mix of 50 percent groundwater and 50 percent imported water. b
The projected supply is based on projected demands which incorporate required water conservation targets associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. c
Historical data is used for 2010. Note that, since water usage was reduced in 2010, for conservative planning purposes water demand projections are not based on 2010 usage.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-3
booster pump stations (“bps”). The City operates 16 potable reservoirs ranging in size from 0.5 million gallons (“mg”) to 6 mg with a total capacity of 43.3 mg. The City also operates two blending stations.

These stations blend high nitrate Temescal Basin groundwater with high quality imported water and Temescal Desalter product water to lower nitrates and total dissolved solids. The blended water meets the regulatory standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and California Department of Public Health (“DPH”). The City’s pressure zones are interconnected between reservoirs and supply sources by major transmission mains, ranging in size from 12 inches to 36 inches in diameter, and bps. Distribution pipelines in the City’s potable water distribution system generally range in size from two inches to 12 inches in diameter and are used to distribute water to residential developments and industrial and commercial users.
(2) Project Vicinity/Project Site Water Supply2 The project site is located in the City’s southwestern water service area. The existing water facilities in the vicinity of the project site are located within the City’s Zone 4 (1220’ high water level [“HWL”]), Zone 5B (1345’ HWL), and Zone 5 (1380’ HWL) water service zones; refer to Figure 4.N-1, Existing Water Facilities Plan. A new 16-inch Zone 5 (1380’ HWL) waterline is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements and would be located in Foothill Parkway from Trudy Way to Mabey Canyon Road.

This line reduces to a 12-inch line in Mabey Canyon Road and then connects into the existing Zone 5B (1345’ HWL) Mabey Canyon Pumped Zone System. The new Zone 5 16-inch line would also continue northerly from Mabey Canyon Road to the Sierra Bella Development. According to the Water Study, this water line system is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. 2 Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project, KWC Engineers, February 10, 2014.

Table 4.N-2
Amount of Groundwater Pumped by the City of Corona (AFY) Historical Groundwater Pumped from Basin (AFY)
Basin 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Temescal Sub-basin 21,248 20,093 22,297 20,444 17,664
Bedford Sub-basin 151a 253a 268a 326a 258a Coldwater Sub-basin 3,725 3,517 2,027 3,101 3,131 Total Potable
Groundwater Supplyb 24,973 23,610 24,324 23,545 20,795
Percent of Total Water
Supplyb 57.3 53.1 59.5 62.1 54.1
a Supply from Bedford Sub-basin is via non-potable wells supplying the reclaimed water system; thus the quantity from Bedford Sub-basin is not included in the potable water total.
b Excludes reclaimed water and supply from non-potable wells in Bedford Sub-basin.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-4
The Zone 5 system pressure is supplied by the Mills Connection, Eagle Glen Zone 5 Booster Station, and Lester Zone 5 Booster Station. The zone serves elevations between 1,100 feet to 1,260 feet above mean sea level (“AMSL”). Water is stored in the Eagle Glen and Gilbert Reservoirs having capacities of 2.0 mg and 4.7 mg, respectively.

An existing 8-inch Zone 5B (1345’ HWL) waterline is located in Mabey Canyon Road northeast of the project site. This sub zone is currently being served from the west by the Zone 4 system via an existing 1,250 gallons per minute (“gpm”) hydro-pneumatic pump station. According to the CDWP staff, this subzone system would be enhanced with the proposed Zone 5 water system inter-connection improvements. As a result, the Mabey Canyon Booster Station would become a secondary water supply source for the Zone 5 system.

A new 16-inch Zone 4 water line is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements and would be located in Trudy Way from Foothill Parkway to the project site. This line would connect a new master plan Zone 4 Water Reservoir located at the project site. The reservoir shall be an underground tank and shall be constructed to CDWP standards and specifications. The tank is designed for a HWL of 1,220 feet. The proposed Zone 4 Reservoir would have a storage capacity of 2.5 mg. The approximate reservoir dimension is estimated as a 120-foot diameter tank at 30 feet high. The tank is situated on a pad elevation of 1,220 feet located on Lot “UU” at the west end of the project site. A 20-foot wide paved access road would be provided from “G” Street at a maximum grade of 12-percent. It is anticipated that the water system improvements noted above that would serve the project site would be in place prior to initiation of construction activities (see discussion below under Project Impacts).

The Zone 4 system pressure is supplied by the Mills Connection, Chase Booster Station, Border Booster Station, Lester Zone 4 Booster Station, and Zone 5 Pressure Reducing Stations. The zone serves elevations between 900 feet to 1,100 feet AMSL. Water is stored in the Hayden Reservoir, Upper and Main Reservoir, and Avenida Del Vista Reservoirs having capacities of 1.6 mg, 4.0 mg, and 1.6 mg, respectively.

Table 4.N-3
Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped by the City of Corona (AFY) Annual Groundwater Pumped from Basina (AFY)
Basin 2010c 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Temescal Sub-basinb 17,664 17,413 15,730 15,992 16,290 16,612 Bedford Sub-basin 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coldwater Sub-basin 3,131 3,031 2,737 2,783 2,835 2,891 Total 20,795 20,444 18,467 18,775 19,125 19,503
a Based on the City’s supply strategy outlined in the GWMP, supply from groundwater sources is anticipated to be 50 percent of the potable water supply. The supply projections shown here incorporate water conservation targets mandated by the Water Conservation Act of 2009. Treatment losses associated with the Temescal Desalter are not included for future years. b As is discussed in Section 3.5.7 of the 2010 UWMP, the GWMP recommended average pumping of 12,000 AFY in the Temescal Sub-basin to prevent overdraft. It is anticipated that the City’s efforts at recharging the Temescal Sub-basin will enable the projected groundwater pumping in excess of 12,000 AFY. c
Historical data is presented for 2010. Note that the 2010 total shown in this table is the total flow extracted from the groundwater basin and is greater than the supply shown in Table 4.N-1 due to flows associated with CWF 19 and 22 and treatment losses associated with the Temescal Desalter.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

Exis ng Water Facili es Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-1
Source: KWC Engineers, 2015.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-6
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-7
(3) Project Vicinity/Project Site Reclaimed Water Facilities3 The existing water facilities in the vicinity of the project site are located within the City’s Zone 3 (1380’ HWL) reclaimed water service zones; refer to Figure 4.N-2, Existing Reclaimed Water Facilities Plan. A new 12-inch Zone 3 reclaimed water line is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements and would be located in Foothill Parkway from Chase Drive to Serfas Club Drive and in Chase Drive from Foothill Parkway to Skyline Drive. This reclaimed water line is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. The Zone 3 system pressure is supplied by the WRF 3 Booster Station and Border Avenue Booster Station. The zone serves elevations between 1,033 feet to 1,355 feet AMSL. Water is stored in the Gilbert Reservoir and WRF 3 having a capacity of 1.0 mg and 1.0 mg, respectively. The project proposes a network of on-site reclaimed water pipelines to serve the project’s HOA and landscaped areas. These areas will be served by a potable water connection until the DWP provides reclaimed water pipelines to the project area. It is anticipated that the reclaimed water system improvements noted above that would serve the project site would be in place prior to initiation of construction activities (see discussion below under Project Impacts). (4) Water Demand4 The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (“SBx7-7”) requires a per-capita reduction in water demand to a target per-capita demand based on the City’s historic per-capita water demands. The City’s baseline per-capita demand is calculated to be 265 gallons per capita per day (“gpcd”). The interim target per-capita demand for Year 2015 is 238 gpcd, while the City’s Year 2020 Target is 212 gpcd. With reductions in per-capita water conservation, it is anticipated that the projected water demands will decrease from 44,331 AFY in 2010 to 39,005 AFY in 2035. Future water demand projections in five-year increments (from 2010 to 2035) are provided by the UWMP and based on projected population and shown in Table 4.N-4, Demand Projections. As shown in Table 4.N-4, the City’s demands are anticipated to decrease in years 2015 and 2020 as the City meets the required water demand targets associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. Over this time, the mandated reduction in demand outpaces the growth of population. After 2020, it is assumed that the per-capita demand will remain consistent with the water conservation target, and overall demand will increase with population growth.
(5) Supply Reliability5 There are two aspects of supply reliability that can be considered. The first relates to immediate service needs and is primarily a function of the availability and adequacy of the supply facilities. The second is climate-related, and involves the availability of water during mild or severe drought periods. This section compares the water supplies and demands during three water scenarios: normal water year, single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. The normal year is a year in the historical sequence that most closely represents median runoff levels and patterns. The supply quantities for this condition are derived from historical average yields. The single dry year is the year with the minimum useable supply. The supply quantifies for this condition are derived from the minimum historical annual yield. Multiple dry years are 3 Preliminary Reclaimed Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project, KWC Engineers, January 16, 2014. 4 City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012. 5 City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-8
three consecutive years with the minimum useable supply. Water systems are more vulnerable to these droughts of long duration, because they deplete water storage reserves in local and state reservoirs and in groundwater basins. The supply quantities for this condition are derived from the minimum historical three consecutive years’ annual average yields. In the past few years, the City’s potable water supply has shifted to be relatively evenly divided between water imported from WMWD and local groundwater. In identifying historic supply reliability conditions throughout dry year and multiple dry year events, the chosen years are consistent with the years in Metropolitan’s 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (“RUWMP”). Metropolitan has identified 1977 as the single driest year since 1922 and the years 1990 through 1992 as the driest multiple years over that same period. These years represent the years in which the least amount of imported water was available from Metropolitan.

Table 4.N-5, Supply and Demand Comparison – Normal Year, summarizes the available supplies comparison with project demands to determine if the City has sufficient water supplies available to meet future demand under average year conditions. While reclaimed water cannot be used to meet potable demands, it has been included in the supply reliability models in order to examine the City’s total supply mix. As discussed above, the imported water supplies are based on the amount of supply Metropolitan has available as a percentage of normal year demands. While hydraulic capacity of the imported water connections and treatment capacity may exceed the imported water supply shown, it is anticipated that Metropolitan’s available supply of imported water will be the limiting factor in the City’s imported water supply. The reclaimed water supply is based on the treatment capacity of the City’s WRFs. It is anticipated that the treatment capacity of the WRFs will be the limiting factor in the quantity of reclaimed water supply available.

As illustrated in Table 4.N-5, it is projected that the City has sufficient supplies available to meet both potable and reclaimed water demands through 2035 under average year conditions with a supply surplus ranging from 55 to 77 percent of the projected demands. Although the reclaimed water supply of 14,952 AFY cannot be used to meet potable demands, removing the 8,000 AFY difference between reclaimed water supply and demand does not affect the conclusion that sufficient supplies are available to meet potable demands.

Table 4.N-4
Demand Projections
Year Demanda (AFY) Population With Countyb(+5,000)
Per Capita Consumption
(GPCD)
2010c 44,331 149,622 154,622 265
2015 40,888 153,335 158,335 238
2020 36,934 155,819 160,819 212
2025 37,551 158,421 163,421 212
2030 38,250 161,370 166,370 212
2035 39,005 164,558 169,558 212
a Demand projections are based on water conservation targets associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. b The water distribution system service area has a population of the approximately 5,000 additional people when compared to the City boundary. The population is associated with the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. c Demand shown for 2010 is a projected demand based on the baseline per-capita usage, and does not reflect historical usage in 2010.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

Exis ng Reclaimed Water Facili es Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-2
Source: KWC Engineers, 2015.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-10
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-11
As illustrated in Table 4.N-6, it is projected that the City has sufficient supplies available to meet both potable and reclaimed water demands through 2035 under single dry year conditions with a total supply surplus ranging from 17 to 34 percent of the projected demands. Although the reclaimed water supply of 14,952 AFY cannot be used to meet potable demands, removing the 7,000 AFY difference between reclaimed water supply and reclaimed water demand does not affect the conclusion that sufficient supplies are available to meet potable demands.

Similar to the normal year, Table 4.N-6, Supply and Demand Comparison – Single Dry Year, summarizes the available supplies comparison with project demands to determine if the City has sufficient water supplies available to meet future demand under single year conditions. The imported water supplies are based on the amount of supply Metropolitan anticipates having available in a single dry year as a percentage of normal year demands. While hydraulic capacity of the imported water connections and treatment capacity may exceed the imported water supply show, it is anticipated that Metropolitan’s available supply of Table 4.N-5
Supply and Demand Comparison – Normal Year
Forecast Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Sources
Supply
Projected Supply as a % of Demand
During a Normal Yeara 174% 197% 206% 193% 181%
Imported Water Supplyb 35,517 36,399 38,676 36,840 35,320 Groundwater Supply 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921
Reclaimed Water Supplyd 11,201 14,952 14,952 14,952 14,952 Total Supply 71,640 76,272 78,549 76,713 75,192
% of Normal Year 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Demands
Imported Water (AFY) 20,444 18,467 18,775 19,125 19,503 Groundwaterc(AFY) 20,444 18,467 18,775 19,125 19,503
Reclaimed Waterf (AFY) 5,222 6,783 6,783 6,873 6,783
Total Demand (AFY) 46,110 43,807 44,424 45,123 45,878
% of Year 2010e(AFY) 104% 99% 100% 102% 103%
Difference Supply – Demand 25,529 32,465 34,125 31,591 29,314 Difference as % of Supply 36% 43% 43% 41% 39%
Difference as % of Demand 55% 74% 77% 70% 64%
a
From Table 7.9 of UWMP. b
Calculated by multiplying the imported water demand with the imported water supply (%) from Row 1. c Groundwater demands are established at 50 percent of total potable demands. d Reclaimed water supply for 2015 is determined by tertiary treatment capacity in 2010; a portion of available wastewater flows were used for year 2020 and thereafter. e Year 2010 deliveries were 44,331 AFY. f
Reclaimed water demands are not projected to offset potable demands in conservation projections since water conservation projections are targets that are independent of any potable water demand projections which would be subject to further offsets.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-12
imported water will be the limiting factor in the City’s imported water supply. Similar to the normal year, the reclaimed water supply shown in Table 4.N-6 is based on the treatment capacity of the City’s WRFs. It is anticipated that the treatment capacity of the WRSs will be the limiting factor in the quantity of reclaimed water supply available and that the single dry year drought will have a limited impact on the quantity of wastewater available for use in the reclaimed water systems. The reclaimed water demands are anticipated to increase in a single dry year similar to potable water demands. It is expected that the decreased rainfall associated with a single dry year will require additional irrigation demands.

Table 4.N-7, Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 1, Table 4.N-8, Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 2, and Table 4.N-9, Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 2, summarizes the available supplies comparison with project demands to determine if the City has sufficient water supplies available to meet future demand under multiple dry year conditions.

Table 4.N-6
Supply and Demand Comparison – Single Dry Year
Forecast Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Sources
Supply
Projected Supply as a % of Demand
During a Normal Yeara 113% 129% 135% 125% 116%
Imported Water Supplyb 27,009 27,739 29,644 27,961 26,408 Groundwater Supplyc 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921
Reclaimed Water Supplyd 11,201 14,952 14,952 14,952 14,952 Total Supply 63,131 67,612 69,517 67,834 66,281
% of Normal Year 88% 89% 89% 88% 88%
Demands Imported Water 23,865 21,557 21,917 22,325 22,766 Groundwaterc 23,865 21,557 21,917 22,325 22,766
Reclaimed Waterf 6,096 8,023 8,023 8,023 8,023
Total Demand 53,826 51,137 51,857 52,673 53,555
% of Year 2010e 121% 115% 117% 119% 121%
Difference Supply – Demand 9,305 16,475 17,660 15,161 12,726 Difference as % of Supply 15% 24% 25% 22% 19%
Difference as % of Demand 17% 32% 34% 29% 24%
a
From Table 7.9 of UWMP. b
Calculated by multiplying the imported water demand with the imported water supply (%) from Row 1. c Groundwater demands are established at 50 percent of total potable demands. d Reclaimed water supply for 2015 is determined by tertiary treatment capacity in 2010; a portion of available wastewater flows were used for year 2020 and thereafter. e Year 2010 deliveries were 44,331 AFY. f
Reclaimed water demands are not projected to offset potable demands in conservation projections since water conservation projections are targets that are independent of any potable water demand projections which would be subject to further offsets. Note that the City could work to convert more customers to reclaimed water during a drought year, but this effort would take time to implement.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-13
Similar to the single-dry year, the imported water supplies shown in Table 4.N-7, 4.N-8, and 4.N-9 are based on the amount of supply Metropolitan anticipates having available in multiple dry years as a percentage of normal year demands. While hydraulic capacity of the imported water connections and treatment capacity may exceed the imported water supply shown, it is anticipated that Metropolitan’s available supply of imported water will be the limiting factor in the City’s imported water supply.

As illustrated in Table 4.N-7 through Table 4.N-9, the projected demands for each source are lower than the projected supplies in each year of a 3-year multiple dry year period. As with normal year and dry year scenarios, the reclaimed water supply cannot be used to meet potable demands, but even after removing the 7,000 AFY of surplus of reclaimed supply (the difference between reclaimed water supply and reclaimed water demand), sufficient potable water supplies are available to meet potable demands in all three years of the multiple dry year scenario. In the projected year with the least supply surplus, year 2015 as the first Table 4.N-7
Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 1
Forecast Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Sources
Supply
Projected Supply as a % of Demand
During a Normal Yeara 101% 110% 110% 105% 101%
Imported Water Supplyb 23,993 23,813 24,192 23,470 22,918 Groundwater Supplyc 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921
Reclaimed Water Supplyd 11,201 14,952 14,952 14,952 14,952 Total Supply 60,115 63,686 64,065 63,343 62,791
% of Normal Year 84% 83% 82% 83% 84%
Demands
Imported Water 23,865 21,557 21,917 22,325 22,766
Groundwaterc 23,865 21,557 21,917 22,325 22,766
Reclaimed Waterf 6,096 8,023 8,023 8,023 8,023
Total Demand 53,826 51,137 51,857 52,673 53,555
% of Year 2010e 121% 115% 117% 119% 121%
Difference Supply – Demand 6,290 12,549 12,208 10,670 9,236 Difference as % of Supply 10.5% 20% 19% 17% 14.7%
Difference as % of Demand 11.7% 25% 24% 20% 17.2%
a
From Table 7.9 of UWMP. b
Calculated by multiplying the imported water demand with the imported water supply (%) from Row 1. c Groundwater demands are established at 50 percent of total potable demands. d Reclaimed water supply for 2015 is determined by tertiary treatment capacity in 2010; a portion of available wastewater flows were used for year 2020 and thereafter. e Year 2010 deliveries were 44,331 AFY. f
Reclaimed water demands are not projected to offset potable demands in conservation projections since water conservation projections are targets that are independent of any potable water demand projections which would be subject to further offsets. Note that the City could work to convert more customers to reclaimed water during a drought year, but this effort would take time to implement.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-14
year in multiple dry year sequence, there is 6,290 AFY of surplus including reclaimed water. After deducting the 5,106 AFY surplus of reclaimed water, there is still a surplus of 1,184 AFY when comparing potable supplies to potable demands. In that scenario, the potable surplus is still two percent greater than the potable demand. Although the increase in demands outstrips Metropolitan’s growth in supply as a percentage, Metropolitan is still projected as being able to meet the total volume of potable water needed by the City. In several of the multiple dry year scenarios, Metropolitan supply capability will be taxed within a few hundred acre feet of its availability, but in all cases demands will be met. The projected available supply from Metropolitan only includes the existing supply programs and does not include the programs that are currently under development that are estimated to increase the imported water supplies by 17 to 39 percent, depending on the planning year and hydraulic conditions. These planned programs increase the total available imported water supply relatively more during single and multiple dry years than during average years. Both potable water and reclaimed water demands during single and multiple dry years are assumed to increase by 17 percent, which represents the maximum per capita demand increase in the period 1990 through 2009. It can be concluded that the City has sufficient supplies available to meet both potable Table 4.N-8
Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 2
Forecast Year 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Water Sources
Supply
Projected Supply as a % of Demand
During a Normal Yeara 101% 110% 110% 105% 101%
Imported Water Supplyb 23,529 23,893 24,282 23,563 23,008 Groundwater Supplyc 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921
Reclaimed Water Supplyd 11,201 14,952 14,952 14,952 14,952 Total Supply 59,651 63,766 64,155 63,436 62,881
% of Normal Year 83% 84% 82% 83% 84%
Demands
Imported Water 23,403 21,629 21,999 22,413 22,856
Groundwaterc 23,403 21,629 21,999 22,413 22,856
Reclaimed Waterf 6,096 8,023 8,023 8,023 8,023
Total Demand 52,903 51,281 52,020 52,850 53,735
% of Year 2010e 119% 116% 117% 119% 121%
Difference Supply – Demand 6,749 12,485 12,135 10,587 9,146 Difference as % of Supply 11.3% 20% 19% 17% 14.5%
Difference as % of Demand 12.8% 24% 23% 20% 17%
a
From Table 7.9 of UWMP. b
Calculated by multiplying the imported water demand with the imported water supply (%) from Row 1. c Groundwater demands are established at 50 percent of total potable demands. d Reclaimed water supply for 2015 is determined by tertiary treatment capacity in 2010; a portion of available wastewater flows were used for year 2020 and thereafter. e Year 2010 deliveries were 44,331 AFY. f
Reclaimed water demands are not projected to offset potable demands in conservation projections since water conservation projections are targets that are independent of any potable water demand projections which would be subject to further offsets. Note that the City could work to convert more customers to reclaimed water during a drought year, but this effort would take time to implement.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-15
and reclaimed water demands through 2035 under average, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. (6) Future Supply Projects and Programs6 Metropolitan plans to meet its supply reliability goal through the following programs:

Surface water storage programs related to the SWP and Colorado River; Colorado River water management programs;
SWP management programs;
Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs;
6 City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

Table 4.N-9
Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 3
Forecast Year 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037
Water Sources
Supply
Projected Supply as a % of Demand
During a Normal Yeara 101% 110% 110% 105% 101%
Imported Water Supplyb 23,065 23,972 24,372 23,656 23,099 Groundwater Supplyc 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921 24,921
Reclaimed Water Supplyd 11,201 14,952 14,952 14,952 14,952 Total Supply 59,187 63,845 64,245 63,529 62,972
% of Normal Year 83% 84% 82% 83% 84%
Demands
Imported Water 22,942 21,701 22,080 22,501 22,946
Groundwaterc 22,942 21,701 22,080 22,501 22,946
Reclaimed Waterf 6,096 8,023 8,023 8,023 8,023
Total Demand 51,980 51,425 52,184 53,026 53,915
% of Year 2010e 117% 116% 118% 120% 122%
Difference Supply – Demand 7,208 12,420 12,062 10,503 9,057 Difference as % of Supply 12.2% 19% 19% 17% 14.4%
Difference as % of Demand 13.9% 24% 23% 20% 16.8%
a
From Table 7.9 of UWMP. b
Calculated by multiplying the imported water demand with the imported water supply (%) from Row 1. c Groundwater demands are established at 50 percent of total potable demands. d Reclaimed water supply for 2015 is determined by tertiary treatment capacity in 2010; a portion of available wastewater flows were used for year 2020 and thereafter. e Year 2010 deliveries were 44,331 AFY. f
Reclaimed water demands are not projected to offset potable demands in conservation projections since water conservation projections are targets that are independent of any potable water demand projections which would be subject to further offsets. Note that the City could work to convert more customers to reclaimed water during a drought year, but this effort would take time to implement.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-16
Water conservation;
Development of local supplies (such as the desalter);
Water reclamation projects;
Ocean desalination programs; and
Groundwater banking programs in the Southern California region (Riverside – Corona Feeder).

The projected increase in supply availability due to these programs under average year conditions is summarized in Table 4.N.10, Metropolitan’s Current and Planned Supply Programs.

Table 4.N-10
Metropolitan’s Current and Planned Supply Programs (AFY) Forecast Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Current Programs
In-Region Storage and Programs 685,000 931,000 1,076,000 964,000 830,000 California Aqueduct 1,550,000 1,629,000 1,763,000 1,733,000 1,734,000 Colorado River Aqueduct 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 3,485,000 3,810,000 4,089,000 3,947,000 3,814,000 Under Development
In-Region Storage and Programs 206,000 306,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 California Aqueduct 382,000 383,000 715,000 715,000 715,000 Colorado River Aqueduct 187,000 187,000 187,000 182,000 182,000 Capability of Planned Programs 588,000 689,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 Supply Increase
Total (AFY) 4,073,000 4,499,000 5,140,000 4,998,000 4,865,000 Total (%) +17% +18% +26% +27% +28%
Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

At this time, the WMWD has outlined plans for over 90 projects which range in scale from regional to local, but all of which provide some benefit to the City. These projects fall primarily into the following categories:

Conveyance;
Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage;
Reclaimed Municipal Water;
Flood Control;
Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation;
Matching Water Quality to Use;

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-17
Pollution Prevention;
Recharge Area Protection; and
Urban Runoff Management
The following projects have been planned by the City to enhance the operations and reliability of the City’s water infrastructure:

New Water Wells;
Replacement Water Wells;
Rincon Groundwater Treatment Project;
Wellhead Treatment for Wells 7 and 17;
El Sobrante Groundwater Treatment Project;
Groundwater Blending Program;
Improvement of Groundwater Quality/Quantity Monitoring Program; Coldwater Sub-basin Enhanced Recharge Program;
Recharge Basins with Oak Avenue Detention Basin;
Recharge Basins with Main Street Detention Basin;
Upgradient Injection Wells;
Reclaimed Water Injection Wells;
Reclaimed Water Zone 3 to Zone 2 Interconnect;
Lincoln and Cota Street Percolation Ponds Maintenance Program; Lee Lake Water District’s Discharge to Bedford Sub-basin; and Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) 2 and 1A Upgrade to Tertiarty.

Implementation of the identified project will allow the City to maintain and expand its water supply and distribution infrastructure, increasing supply reliability and reliability of its water and reclaimed water distribution systems.
(7) City of Corona Wastewater7 The City currently provides approximately 3,570 AFY of reclaimed water to 199 customers. The existing demand is supplied from the City’s WRF 1 and WRF 3. The existing system consists of two service zones, two gravity storage reservoirs, one pumped storage reservoir, four booster pump stations, two storage tanks, two pressure reducing stations, one surge anticipator valve, and approximately 210,000 feet of pipe ranging from four inches to 24 inches in diameter. Table 4.N-11, Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY) summarizes the past, current, and projected wastewater volumes collected and treated, and the quantity of wastewater treated to recycled water standards for treatment plants within the CDWP’s service area. The

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-18
projections of wastewater flow illustrated in Table 4.N-11 are derived from the City’s 2005 Sewer Master Plan. The projections were generated by linearly interpolating flow projections for 2003 and 2035 from the SMP. The 2010 reclaimed water volume is from the City’s current Reclaimed Water Master Plan. For 2010, approximately 25 percent of wastewater collected in the City was supplied to the reclaimed water systems.

Table 4.N-12, Water Reclamation Facilities, illustrates the capacity of the City’s WRFs and provides anticipated future expansion capacities based on the 2010 RWMP. There are currently plans for both tertiary treatment capacity and total treatment capacity to be expanded in the future. While only two of the three WRFs are currently capable of providing tertiary treatment to wastewater, all three facilities are planned to have a tertiary filter rating in the future. Table 4.N-13, Disposal of Non-Reclaimed Wastewater, summarizes the disposal method and treatment level of discharge volumes. As illustrated in Table 4.N-13, annual discharge flow for disposal of wastewater is projected to remain relatively constant. This is mostly due to projected increases in reclaimed water use in the City. Wastewater from City WRFs that is not sent to the reclaimed water distribution system is discharged to percolation ponds. During periods of low irrigation demand, the City’s WRFs discharge tertiary water to Temescal Creek. (8) Project Vicinity/Project Site Wastewater
The project site is located in the CDWP service area. The project site drainage area drains west towards the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) 1. The current treatment capacity of WWTP 1 is 11.5 million gallons per day (“mgd”) with an expected future reliable treatment capacity of 14.5 mgd with improvements. The project’s proposed sewer flows would tie into the City’s existing trunk sewer system, 7 City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

Table 4.N-11
Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY)
Type of Wastewater
Fiscal Year Ending
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035-opt
Wastewater Collected &
Treated in Service Areaa 13,395 14,315 15,235 16,155 17,075 17,994 18,914 Volume that Meets
Recycled Water
Standardsb
65c 3,308 5,222 6,873 6,873 6,873 6,873
a Collection and treatment figures were generated by linearly interpolating flow projections for 2003 and 2035 from the SMP. b The 2020 reclaimed water volume is from billing data. Further, reclaimed water volume is based on the anticipated plans for expansion discussed in the 2010 RWMP. Based on discussions with City staff, it is anticipated that expansion of the reclaimed water system as discussed in the 2020 RWMP will occur by 2020 and further expansion will not be necessary. Note that only the amount of flow projected for use in the reclaimed water system is shown here. Some of the non-reclaimed wastewater discharged to percolation ponds and the Temescal Creek are treated to tertiary treatment standards as will be discussed later. c Based on average demand of Butterfield Park. The City supplied Butterfield Park with reclaimed water prior to the rest of the reclaimed water system as a part of a pilot project.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-19
Sewershed 14 is located generally west of Lincoln Avenue between the Prado Flood Control Basin and the southerly City boundary. The trunk sewers in Sherman Avenue and Smith Avenue transport wastewater flows north to the 42-inch Railroad Trunk Sewer. These flows are tributary to the WWTP 1.

Sewershed 16 is located from west of Lincoln Avenue to east of Kellogg and Garretson Avenue, extending from the northerly service area boundary to the southerly City limits. Trunk sewers in Buena Vista Avenue, Vicentia Avenue, Sheridan Street, Victoria Avenue, and Joy Street convey waste water flows from the south to the 42-inch Railroad Trunk Sewer. Flows north of Temescal Wash are collected at the Joy and Parkridge Lift Station and then pumped across the wash to Harrison Street. From this point, the sewage flows by gravity to Railroad Street. These flows are tributary to the WWTP 1. (9) Solid Waste
The CDWP administers the contract for solid waste, recycling, and green waste collection services within the city of Corona with Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”). Riverside County also contracts with WMI to provide solid waste and recycling services to all residential, commercial, and industrial customers within the unincorporated portions of the County. Waste Management of the Inland Empire serves over 220,000 residents, disposing of over 17,000 tons of waste on a weekly basis in the Inland Empire. The El Sobrante Table 4.N-12
Water Reclamation Facilities
Water Reclamation
Facility
Flow (mgd)
Current Plan
Capacity
Current Tertiary Filter
Rating
Future Plant
Capacity
Future Tertiary Filter
Rating
1 11.5 9.0 15.5 15.5
2 3.0 - 6.0 3.0
3 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0
Total 15.5 10.0 26.5 23.6
a
The plant capacities and anticipated future plant capacities are from the 2010 RWMP.

Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

Table 4.N-13
Disposal of Non-Reclaimed Wastewater
Method of Disposal Treatment Level
Annual Discharge Flow (AFY)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035-opt
Percolation Ponds Secondary 6,225 - - - - -
Percolation Ponds Tertiary - 8,961 8,961 8,961 8,961 8,961 Temescal Creek Tertiary 3,063 5,495 5,495 5,495 5,495 5,495 Total 9,288 14,457 14,457 14,457 14,457 14,457
Source: City of Corona Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Carollo, April 2012.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-20
Landfill, located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road, Corona, is presently used for refuse collected within the City, including the project site, and has a total capacity to process up to 70,000 tons of waste per week with an expected closure date in 2045.8 WMI provides single-family residential units within the City with a total of three bins: one for trash, one for recyclable materials, and one for yard and green waste. In addition, WMI does not have specific volume limitations for refuse collection which is collected on a weekly basis. City service collection for all services (refuse, recycling and green waste) occurs weekly, while County refuse occurs weekly and recyclable pick-up occurs on a biweekly basis. County residents do not presently have green waste pick up service. City residential WMI customers pay refuse collection fees through the water/utility bills while commercial and industrial customers are billed directly from WMI. County residents and customers are billed directly through WMI. Recyclable goods collected within the City are processed by Burrtec Waste Industries while City green waste collected within the City is processed through Viramontes Express. WMI also provides nocharge bulky item collections twice a year to County residential customers and three times a year to City residential customers. Commercial trash pickup is provided by WMI for up to six days a week. Commercial customers have an average size bin of approximately three cubic yards that are generally collected twice a week. Multi-family residential units are considered commercial accounts under the WMI as those units do not have individual unit pick-ups. WMI offers commercial accounts 50 to 60 recycling bins in an effort to reduce the amount of un-recyclable trash. As stated below, AB 939 requires a 25 percent reduction in solid waste by 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by 2000. However, WMI’s contract with the City predates AB 939 recycle/waste diversion program and is not obligated to meet AB 939 requirements; rather WMI has been assigned to facilitate the City’s compliance with AB 939 requirements through the Amendment for the Collection of Recycle Materials. As shown in the 1996 Annual Report, the City was able to divert approximately 35.5 percent of waste through recycling, reduction of solid waste amount, and public education. For the 2005, the City was able to divert approximately 46 percent of waste through recycling and solid waste reduction practices.

WMI offers a roll-off program for industrial refuse collections in which over-sized objects such as concrete, rock, and soil would not fit in regular trash bins. The roll-off containers are able to contain approximately 10 tons of trash. Non-residential accounts with the Specific Plan would pay WMI directly for solid waste disposal services. Solid waste pick-up services are available to the project site through the WMI.9 b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Water Supply
(a) Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (California Health and Safety Code Sections 116350-116405) is intended to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The Act authorizes the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) to set national standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants.
8 Steve Wilkson, City of Corona Public Works – Waste Management/Recycling, email correspondence, dated February, 28, 2014. 9 Steve Wilkson, City of Corona Public Works – Waste Management/Recycling, email correspondence, dated February, 28, 2014.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-21
(b) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (primary standards), also known as maximum contaminant levels, are legally enforceable standards that are set and enforced by the USEPA and that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.
(c) National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
The National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. The USEPA recommends the secondary standards to water systems, but does not require the systems to comply. However, States may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards.

Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) provides the regulatory requirements for potable water quality in California. (d) Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations
The requirements of Title 22 (as revised in 1978, 1990, and 2001) establish the quality and/or treatment processes required for a recycled effluent to be used for a non-potable application. In addition to recycled water uses and treatment requirements, Title 22 addresses sampling and analysis requirements at the treatment plant, preparation of an engineering report prior to production or use of recycled water, general treatment design requirements, reliability requirements, and alternative methods of treatment. Permits are issued to each water recycling project by one of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“RWQCBs”).

These permits include water quality and public health protections. Title 22 is enforced by the RWQCBs and regulates the sources, uses, plumbing requirements, sampling and analysis, reporting, design, and treatment requirements of recycled water in California. Title 17 of the CCR regulates the protection of the potable water supply through the control of cross-connections with potential contaminants, including recycled water.
(e) California Urban Water Management Plan Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code [“CWC”] Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610-10656) addresses several State policies regarding water conservation and the development of water management plans to ensure the efficient use of available supplies. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act also requires water suppliers to develop water management plans every five years to identify short-term and long-term demand management measures to meet growing water demands during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Specifically, municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 AF per year of water must adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”). The City adopted the 2010 UWMP.
(f) Water Conservation Target Methods per SBx7-7
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7), enacted November 2009, governs water conservation in the State of California. This law requires that all water suppliers increase water use efficiency with the overall goal to decrease per-capita consumption within the state by 20 percent by 2020. The bill requires the DWR to develop certain criteria, methods, and standard reporting forms through a public process that can be used by water suppliers to establish their baseline water use and determine their water conservation goals. DWR

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-22
provides four different methods to establish water conservation targets. These four methods can be summarized as follows:

Method 1 – Baseline Reduction Method. The 2020 water conservation target of this method is defined as a 20-percent reduction of average per-capita demand during a 10-year continuous baseline period that should end between 2004 and 2010.

Method 2 – Efficiency Standard Method. The 2020 water conservation target of this method is based on calculating efficiency standards for indoor use separately from outdoor use for residential sectors and an overall reduction of ten percent for commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. The aggregated total of the efficiency standards in each area is then used to create a conservation target.

Method 3 – Hydrologic Region Method. This method uses the ten regional urban water use targets for the state. Based on the water supplier’s location within one of these regions, a static water use conservation target for both 2015 and 2020 is assigned.

Method 4 – BMP-Based Method. This method uses previous BMPs of a supplier in order to establish a conservation target for 2020. Depending on how aggressively the water supplier has pursued water reduction and conservation in the past, a new conservation target for 2020 will be assigned. (g) Senate Bill 610, Senate Bill 221, and Senate Bill 7 State legislation addressing water supply, Senate Bill (“SB”) 610 and SB 221, became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610, codified in CWC §10910 et seq., describes requirements for both water supply assessments (“WSAs”) and UWMPs applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) process. SB 610 requires that for projects subject to CEQA, which meet specific size criteria, the water supplier must prepare a WSA that determines whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project is included as part of the most recently adopted UWMP. Specifically, a WSA shall identify existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, and prior years’ water deliveries received by the public water system. In addition, it must address water supplies over a 20-year period and consider normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions. In accordance with SB 610 and Section 10912 of the CWC, such projects subject to CEQA requiring completion of a WSA include the following:

Residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units; Shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
Hotels, motels, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plants, or industrial parks planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
Mixed-use projects that include one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or Projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-23
The WSA must be approved by the public water system at a regular or special meeting and must be incorporated into the CEQA document. The lead agency must then make certain findings related to water supply based on the WSA.

In addition, under SB 610, a water supplier responsible for the preparation and periodic updating of an UWMP must describe the water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet the total project water use of the service area. If groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier, the following additional information must be included in the UWMP: (1) a groundwater management plan; (2) a description of the groundwater basin(s) to be used and the water use adjudication rights, if any; (3) a description and analysis of groundwater use in the past five years; and (4) a discussion of the sufficiency of the groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the supplier.

Complementary legislation to SB 610 was enacted on November 10, 2009, with the passage of SB 7. SB 7 mandates new water conservation goals for UWMPs, requiring urban water suppliers to achieve a 20 percent per capita water consumption reduction by the year 2020 statewide, as described in the “20 x 2020” State Water Conservation Plan.10 As such, each updated UWMP must now incorporate a description of how each respective urban water supplier will quantitatively implement this water conservation mandate, in addition to the requirements of SB 610.

SB 221 also addresses water supply in the land use planning process and focuses on new residential subdivisions in non-urban areas. SB 221 requires that written verification from the water service provider be submitted indicating sufficient water supply is available to serve a proposed subdivision, or the local agency shall make a specified finding that sufficient water supplies are or will be available prior to completion of a project. SB 221 specifically applies to residential subdivisions of 500 units or more. In addition, Government Code Section 66473.7(i) exempts “…any residential project proposed for a site that is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed for urban uses; or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously have been, developed for urban uses; or housing projects that are exclusively for very low and low-income households.” The proposed project would introduce 292 single-family detached residential dwellings. Therefore, a WSA is not required for the proposed project.
(h) Assembly Bill 3030
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 3030, the Groundwater Management Act, is Section 10750 et. seq. of the California Water Code. AB 3030 provides local water agencies with procedures to develop a voluntary groundwater management plan to manage their groundwater resources efficiently and safely while protecting the quality of supplies. Once a plan is adopted, the rules and regulations contained therein must also be adopted to implement the program outlined in the plan.
(i) Efficiency Standards – Title 20 and 24 California Administrative Code Title 24 of the California Administrative Code contains the California Building Standards, including the California Plumbing Code (Part 5) which promotes water conservation. Title 20 addresses Public Utilities 10 California State Water Resources Control Board, 20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan, February 2010. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov /water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/20x2020plan.pdf.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-24
and Energy and includes appliance efficiency standards that promote water conservation. In addition, many State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures and are listed below:

Title 24, California Administrative Code, Sections 25352(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures.

Insulation of water-heating systems is also required.

Title 20, California Administrative Code, Section 1604(g) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, sink faucets and tub spout diverters.

Title 20, California Administrative Code, Section 1606 prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with established efficiency regulations.

Health and Safety Code, Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings.

Health and Safety Code, Section 116785 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied and includes the requirement that water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned water be installed. (j) California Code of Regulations
Title 20, Sections 1605.1(h) and 1605.1(i) of the CCR establishes efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new federally-regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets. The maximum flow rate for showerheads and lavatory faucets are 2.5 gpm at 80 pounds psi and 2.2 gpm at 60 psi, respectively. In addition, Section 1605.3(h) establishes State efficiency standards for nonfederally regulated plumbing fittings, including commercial pre-rinse spray valves. (k) Global Warming and Climate Change
Global warming and climate change should be considered in assessing water supply in California. Potential impacts of climate change on California’s water resources include changes in both water and air temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and changes in sea levels that could increase pressure on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) levees. The impact of climate change on California’s water supply has already been the subject of study. In response to Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, California DWR prepared its most recent report on this issue in May 2009, entitled “Using Future Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California,” which presents an overview of the advances that DWR has made toward using future climate projection information to support decision making by quantifying possible impacts to water resources for a range of future climate scenarios. Advances have been made in using future climate projection information in water resources planning in California, including improved understanding of how well selected climate models represent historical climate conditions and refined methodologies for representing stream flows, outdoor urban and agricultural water demands, and sea level rise in planning tools. The range of impacts presented indicated the need for adaptation measures to improve the reliability of future water supplies in California.11 11 “Using Future Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California,” May 2009, California Department of Water Resources, page 2.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-25
DWR has further addressed the issue of climate change and how it can affect California’s water supply, by undertaking mitigation and adaptation measures. DWR is a member of the California Climate Action Registry and is listed as a “Climate Action Leader” for reporting its greenhouse gas emissions for three consecutive years (2007, 2008 and 2009), and having the data verified by third party audit.12 In 2008, DWR adopted the “Climate Change Adaptation Strategy,” which urges a new approach to California’s water and other natural resources in the face of changing climate.13 In 2009, DWR adopted its own Sustainability Policy, and in 2010, DWR established clear and measurable goals for sustainability implementations.14,,15 In December 2010, DWR prepared a survey which presents summaries of 13 different reports and studies prepared by DWR addressing climate change entitled “Climate Change Characterization and Analysis in California Water Resources Planning Studies - Final Report.” Although DWR was one of the early leaders in including climate change analysis in its planning studies and reports, it does not currently have a standard framework or a set of recommended approaches for considering climate change in its planning studies. A variety of approaches to characterize and analyze future climate have been used in various DWR planning studies. The December 2010 paper summarized the approaches and methodologies that have been used since 2006. It is the first comprehensive comparative look at the different approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they have been used in past studies. This work is anticipated to lay the groundwork for a future DWR study aimed at developing a standard framework and a consistent set of approaches to be used for characterizing and analyzing climate change in future DWR planning studies and which may provide guidance for DWR partners and grantees.16 While climate change is expected to continue through at least the end of this century, the magnitude and nature of future changes are uncertain. This uncertainty serves to complicate the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood.17 However, preliminary modeling conducted by DWR indicates that under one climate change scenario, average yearly SWP Table A deliveries in 2050 would be reduced by 10.2 percent.18 In light of these conclusions, both governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations recommend that water decision-makers operate existing water systems to allow for increased flexibility. Other recommendations include incorporating climate change research into infrastructure design, conjunctively managing surface water and groundwater supplies, and integrating water and land use practices. As a result, 12 California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Leaders. http://www.climateregistry.org/about/members/climate-actionleaders.html. Accessed April 26, 2011. 13 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water: Managing an Uncertain Future, California Department of Water Resources, October 2008. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf. 14 Memorandum to All DWR Employees, “Sustainability Workgroup,” California Department of Water Resources, April 22, 2009. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/Sustainability_Policy.pdf. 15 Memorandum to All DWR Employees, “Sustainability Targets,” California Department of Water Resources, September 20, 2010. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/Sustainability_Policy.pdf. 16 “Climate Change Characterization and Analysis in California Water Resources Planning Studies - Final Report,” California Department of Water Resources, December 2010, page v. 17 “Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources,” July 2006, California Department of Water Resources, page 2-54. 18 Table A water deliveries represent the schedule of the maximum amount of water that water contractors to the DWR may receive annually from the SWP. There are 29 water contractors who have signed long term contractors with the DWR for a total of 4,173 million acre feet per year. Table A deliveries are not guarantees of annual delivery amounts but are used to allocate individual contractors’ portion of the delivery amounts available.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-26
in March 2002, the Metropolitan Board of Directors adopted climate change policy principles that relate to water resources. These principles are reflected in MWD’s Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”), which was updated October 12, 2010.19 Further, in response to climate change and uncertainty, MWD’s 2010 Regional UWMP incorporated three basic elements to promote adaptability and flexibility, important in addressing impacts of climate change: conservation, groundwater recharge, and water recycling.20 MWD also approved criteria to further explain its position on the conveyance options that are currently being discussed to remedy the Delta, which include addressing projected sea level rise and change in inflows due to climate change. MWD’s criteria provide that, “whatever option is chosen, it should provide water supply reliability, improve export water quality, allow flexible pumping operations in a dynamic fishery environment, enhance the Delta ecosystem, reduce seismic risks, and reduce climate change risks.”21 MWD has demonstrated a commitment to addressing climate change by evaluating the vulnerability of its water systems to global warming impacts and has developed appropriate response strategies and management tools that account for the impacts of climate change on future water supplies. For further discussion on the effects of global climate change, please refer to Section 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR. (l) City of Corona 2010 UWMP In accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the City updated its UWMP; the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan was adopted by the City Council on June 15, 2011. The UWMP was prepared consistent with the requirements under Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, and became effective on January 1, 1984. Consistent with the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the UWMP identifies the sources for the District’s water supplies to meet demand during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.
(m) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4 Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities, of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming water systems and facilities within the City. (n) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 13 Public Services Chapter 13.14, Water and Sewer Regulations, Section 13.14.040, Rates and ready to serve charge, of the Corona Municipal Code (“CMC”) states the minimum monthly service charges for water service shall be paid by all users connected to the water system, whether or not any water is actually used. Water users shall also pay for the quantities of water used. The service rates and minimum monthly service charges shall be established by the Schedule of User/Service Fees for Water Usage adopted by the City Council. Chapter

13.14, Water and Sewer Regulations, Section 13.14.050, Construction and connection fees – rates, of the CMS describes the types of fees every applicant shall pay to the CDWP for new water services. 19 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Report No. 1373, Updated October 12, 2010. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/irp/IRP2010Report.pdf. 20 The Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2010. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP_2010.pdf. 21 Report for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board Meeting September 11, 2007 Agenda Item 8-4, emphasis added.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-27
Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of the CMC includes water conservation provisions that require that overall water consumption be reduced by 15 percent in an effort to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on City users. The Water Conservation Plan would (1) protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and property owners of the City; (2) assure the maximum beneficial use of City water supplies; and (3) attempt to provide sufficient water supplies to meet the basic needs of human consumption, sanitation and fire protection. The Water Conservation Plan also includes the Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement program, outdoor water use audits, residential rebate programs for washers and toilets, special rebate programs for commercial, industrial and institutional customers, and the use of recycled water for irrigation.
(2) Wastewater
(a) Capacity Assurance, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Program In January 2001, the USEPA published a proposed rule intended to clarify and expand permit requirements under the Clean Water Act to further protect public health and the environment from impacts associated with sanitary sewer overflows. The proposed rule is generally referred to as the “Capacity Assurance, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Program Regulation”. The proposed Program’s regulation requires development and implementation of programs intended to meet the performance standard of eliminating sanitary sewer overflows; to provide overflow emergency response plans, system evaluations, and capacity assurance plans; to conduct program audits; and to implement public communication efforts. (b) State Water Resources Control Board
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) adopted Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (“WDR”). All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publically owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to comply with the terms of this Order. The principal requirement of the WDR is for each system owner to develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System Management Plan (“SSMP”). The IEUA SSMP was prepared in order to meet the requirements of Order No. 2006-0003 issued on May 2, 2006. (c) City of Corona Department of Water and Power Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (2009) Per the SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems, the CDWP was required to develop a SSMP. The SSMP includes goals for the operation and maintenance of its wastewater collection system; organizational structure legal authority; system requirements; an operations and maintenance program; design and performance provisions; overflow emergency response plan; fats, oils, and grease (“FOG”) control program; system evaluation and capacity assurance plan; monitoring, measurement, and plan modifications; SSMP program audits; communication program. (d) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4 Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities, of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming sewer/wastewater systems and facilities within the City.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-28
(e) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 13 Public Services Chapter 13.08, Public Sewerage System Waste Regulations, Section 13.08.600, Disposition of funds – sewer service funds established, of the CMC states that all funds and payments received from the collection of sewer service charges established by the Schedule of Sewer/User Service Fees and the Schedule of Sewer Development Fees shall be deposited with the City Treasurer, who shall establish and maintain a separate fund and account to be known as “The Sewer Service Fund”. The fund and payment may be used for the retirement of sewer, bonds and for payment of interest thereon and for the acquisition, operation, maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of the sewerage system. The funds and payment however, shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street sewers or lateral pipelines as distinguished from the main trunk, interceptor and outfall sewer pipelines.

Chapter 13.08, Public Sewerage System Waste Regulations, Section 13.08.630, rates to be paid for sewer service charges, of the CMC specifies that every person or entity whose premises or property in the City is served by a City sewer connection, whereby the sewage or industrial wastes, or either or both, are disposed of by the City through a sewage treatment plant is required to pay a sewer service charge as set forth in the Schedule of Sewer User/Service Fees.

Chapter 13.12, Sewer Connections, provides for a fair and equitable schedule of charges for services and facilities furnished by the City sewerage system, to provide for the procurement of a permit from the Director of Utility Services for marking connections with the public sewers and to establish a sewer assessments fund into which these charges may be deposited and from which moneys will be available for the purpose of defraying the cost of replacement and expansion of the sewerage system and sewage disposal plant of the City.
(3) Solid Waste
(a) State of California
The State of California has enacted three key legislations relating to solid waste. These include Assembly Bill 939 – the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Public Resources Code Sections 41000- 41460), Senate Bill 1327 – the California Solid Waste Reuse and the Recycling Access Act of 1991 (Public Resources Code Sections 42900-42911), Senate Bill 1374 – Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, and Assembly Bill 341 – Mandatory Commercial Recycling. Each of these regulations is described below.
(i) Assembly Bill 939 – California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (“AB 939”) introduced an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide local agencies in the implementation of source reduction, recycling, composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. It required each county to establish a task force to coordinate the development of city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (“SRREs”) and a countywide siting element. It also required each county to prepare, adopt, and submit an Integrated Waste Management Plan (“IWMP”) to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (“CIWMB”), which was established by AB 939 to ensure the monitoring and enforcement of AB 939 mandates. Through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities, AB 939 required each city or county to divert 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-29
To note, on Jan. 1, 2010 California's recycling and waste diversion efforts were streamlined into the new Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery — otherwise known as CalRecycle. CalRecycle manages programs created through two landmark initiatives--the Integrated Waste Management Act and the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act--that were formerly part of the CIWMB and the Department of Conservation (“DOC”). Now housed in the Natural Resources Agency, CalRecycle merges the duties of the Board with those of DOC’s Division of Recycling to best protect public health and the environment by effectively and efficiently managing California’s waste disposal and recycling efforts.

Although the requirements of AB 939 are directly applicable to Cities and Counties, AB 939 is identified as a relevant regulation due to the fact that individual development projects within the City contribute to the determination of whether the City is able to divert 50 percent of all solid waste. (ii) Senate Bill 1016 – Per Capita Disposal Measurement System The purpose of the “Per Capita Disposal Measurement System” (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 proposed as SB 1016 – Wiggins) is to make the process of goal measurement as established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) simpler, more timely, and more accurate. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of jurisdictions' performance. SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator--the per capita disposal rate--which uses only two factors: a jurisdiction's population (or in some cases employment) and its disposal as reported by disposal facilities.

In order for CalRecycle and jurisdictions to more properly focus on successful program implementation, SB 1016 shifts from the historical emphasis on using calculated generation and estimated diversion to using annual disposal as a factor when evaluating jurisdictions' program implementation. Overall benefits of the new approach include:

Focuses on diversion program implementation.

Increases simplicity and timeliness of goal measurement.

Allows for jurisdiction growth.

Saves money and time by eliminating complex calculations.

Increases CalRecycle staff field presence.

Adjusts CalRecycle review schedule for compliant jurisdictions.

The per capita disposal rate approach is not determinative of jurisdiction compliance. CalRecycle will use per capita disposal as an indicator in evaluating program implementation and local jurisdiction performance.

CalRecycle's evaluation will be focused on how jurisdictions are implementing their programs. (iii) Senate Bill 1327 – California Solid Waste Reuse and the Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires individual development projects to provide adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials. The size of these storage areas is to be determined by the appropriate jurisdiction’s ordinance. If no such ordinance exists within the jurisdiction, the CIWMB-adopted ordinance shall take effect. The requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and the Recycling Access Act of 1991 are conservatively

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-30
included in this analysis as all development projects within the State are required to provide adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials per the Act. (iv) Senate Bill 1374 – Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements Senate Bill 1374 (Kuehl) passed in 2002, requires that jurisdictions include in their annual AB 939 report a summary of the progress made in diverting construction and demolition waste. The legislation also requires that the CIWMB complete five items with regard to the diversion of construction and demolition waste: (1) adopt a model ordinance for diverting 50 to 75 percent of all construction and demolition debris from landfills; (2) consult with representatives of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, private and public waste services and building construction materials industry and construction management personnel during the development of the model ordinance; (3) compile a report on programs, other than the model ordinance, that local governments and general contractors can implement to increase the diversion of construction and demolition debris; (4) post a report on the agency’s website for general contractors on methods by which contractors can increase diversion of construction and demolition waste materials; and (5) post on the agency’s website a report for local governments with suggestions on programs, in addition to the model ordinance, to increase diversion of construction and demolition waste materials.
(b) City of Corona
(i) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4 Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Infrastructure & Utilities, of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming solid waste systems and facilities within the City. (ii) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Safety Chapter 8.20 of the CMC sets forth provisions and requirements for solid waste and recyclables collection within the City. Chapter 8.20 specifically indentifies the availability of receptacles for all uses, outlines the requirements for solid waste collection, and provisions regarding service rates, fees, and charges.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
(1) Water Supply
The analysis of impacts with regard to water infrastructure capacity and water infrastructure is based on information provided by the Water Report and Reclaimed Water Report; refer to Appendix L, of this Draft EIR. The analysis assesses whether the proposed project’s anticipated domestic water demand would be accommodated by the existing water infrastructure. The Water Report calculated the proposed additional water demand. The estimated increase in water demand was then compared to the growth projected for the area in the currently approved 2010 UWMP for the purveyor, the CDWP, serving the project area. The analysis considers whether sufficient water supplies would exist in addition to the existing and planned future demands on the City during a normal year, single-dry year, and multiple dry years. Impacts regarding water sufficiency for fire-fighting are addressed in Section 4.L, Public Services, of this Draft EIR.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-31
(2) Wastewater
The analysis of impacts with regard to water infrastructure capacity and water infrastructure is based on information provided by the Wastewater Report; refer to Appendix L, of this Draft EIR. The wastewater generation of the proposed project was estimated using wastewater generation factors provided by the Wastewater Report. The project’s estimated increase in wastewater flow was then compared to the existing conditions to assess the capacity of the existing sewer system and the ability of the system to accommodate the additional flows, with detailed wastewater generation and sewer pipe sizing and capacity data provided by the City. In order to evaluate treatment capacity, the project’s estimated wastewater generation is compared with the available treatment capacity within the WRFs. Cumulative wastewater generation is also compared with the available capacity of the WRFs using the estimated wastewater generation, as the related projects being considered in the cumulative analysis would also be served by the CDWP’s WRFs. (3) Solid Waste The environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to solid waste are determined by comparing the project’s net increase in solid waste to the capacity of solid waste facilities that would serve the project site. In addition, a discussion of recycling programs and prescribed mitigation measures that would be implemented by the proposed project is provided to determine whether the project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of questions to assist in determining whether a proposed project would have a significant impact related to various environmental issues including utilities and service systems. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact relative to utilities and service systems would occur if the project would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-2 below); or
Threshold 2: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-1 and 4.N-2 below); or Threshold 3: 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 (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-3 below); or
Threshold 4: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221) (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-1 below); or

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-32
Threshold 5: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-2 below); or Threshold 6: Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-4 below); or Threshold 7: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-4 below); or
Threshold 8: Comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-5 below).
c. Project Design Features
The construction and operation of the proposed project would be completed in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements in consultation with the CDWP and WMI regarding water supply and water infrastructure, wastewater, and solid waste. 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 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 water reservoir tank, and install a new on-site zone valve in “B” Street, as summarized below in Table 4.N-14, Proposed Infrastructure Improvements. 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 project implementation:

Construction of the new 16-inch Zone 5 waterline in Foothill Parkway from Trudy Way to 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.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-33
Although unlikely and not anticipated to occur, 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.

As discussed in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project would 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 implement a number of Project Design Features (PDFs), including PDF HYD-4 and PDF HYD-5, which relate to stormwater infrastructure: (1) PDF HYD-4: The project will install a system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping so that off-site flows will by-pass the site and will not be co-mingled with development runoff which will be treated at the designated BMP treatment areas; (2) PDF HYD-5: 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 Table 4.N-14
Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
Project No. Project Description
Facility
Location Zone
Proposed
Pipe Size
(inches)
Approx.

Length (lf)
1 Distribution Waterlines
Onsite/Offsite 5 8 3,593
2 Distribution Waterlines
Onsite/Offsite 5 12 841
3 Distribution Waterlines On-site 6A 8 6,934
4 Distribution Waterlines On-site 6A 12 12,394
5 Upgrade Ex. Mabey Canyon Booster
Pump Station to 1,340 gpm capacity On-site 5B - - 6
Booster Pump Station (500 gpm
capacity) On-site 6A - -
7 0.6 mg Water Reservoir (HWL
1,560’) On-site 6A - - 8 Zone Valve in “B” Street On-site 6A/5 - - Source: Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project (“Water Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15, 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-34
install biotreatment BMPs (i.e., extended detention basins) within each DMA as approved by the City Department of Public Works.
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Water Supply and Water Infrastructure
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to service the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new expanded entitlements needed? Impact 4.N-1 Implementation of the proposed project could require or result in the construction of new onsite and off-site water facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and 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. (a) Construction
The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes and associated supporting infrastructure. Project construction would involve site clearance, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication to be developed within three phases. Table 4.N-14 includes a list of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, descriptions, facility locations, zones, and proposed pipe sizes and lengths. The domestic water infrastructure facilities would be constructed in several phases based on the needs of the project site. Two independent sources of water would be provided to each lot as required by the CDWP. Figure 4.N-3, Construction Phasing, illustrates the proposed water improvements for each phase. As an option, the proposed water infrastructure can be re-phased and completed such that the pipe segment in “A” Street between “G” Street and “I” Street (approximately 769 linear feet of 8-inch line) can be omitted as long as two independent sources of water are provided to serve each lot within each phase.

Construction activities would create a short-term demand for water during the construction period for fugitive dust control, concrete preparation, site preparation, clean up, and other short-term construction- related activities. Project trenching, new/upgraded lateral connections, installation of water mains, construction of the reservoir, underground tank, booster pump stations, and associated pipelines would occur in accordance with City-issued construction permits and applicable CDWP regulations and requirements which have been formulated to avoid interruptions in water service to off-site uses and adverse effects to the City’s water system. The final alignment and location of utilities would require review and approval by the CDWP. Project construction could require temporary lane closures due to trenching and grading within Foothill Parkway. As further discussed in Section 4.M., Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the project Applicant would implement a Construction Management Plan in coordination with the City Traffic

Construc on Phasing FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-3
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-36
This page is intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-37
Engineer to minimize traffic impacts upon the local circulation system in the area. Therefore, project construction impacts on water supply and water infrastructure would be less than significant. (b) Operation
Water would be supplied to the proposed project by the CDWP. The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes which would result in an increase in long-term water demand from the project site. The projected water demand factor of 3,540 gpd/ac for a low density residential land use designation was used to determine the Average Day Demands, Maximum Day Demands, and Peak Hour Demands for the proposed project. There are 58 proposed lots to be served off of the Zone 5 pressure system and 234 proposed lots to be served off of the Zone 6A pressure system. Table 4.N-15, Water Demand Summary, displays the projected Average Day, Maximum Day, and Peak Hour Demands for each water service zone within the proposed project. As shown below, the total estimated water demand generated by the proposed project is approximately 0.51 mgd average day demand, 0.91 mgd maximum day demand, and

1.28 mgd peak hour demand.

Using the projected water demands, Table 4.N-16, Proposed Project Reservoir Storage Requirements, summarizes the required reservoir storage for each water service zone.

The proposed project is proposing to construct one aboveground reservoir to supply the necessary storage and pressures needed to service the proposed intermediate Zone 6A. The reservoir would be constructed to CDWP standards and specifications. This zone is designed for a HWL of 1,560 feet. The proposed intermediate Zone 6A Reservoir has a storage capacity of 0.6 mg. The approximate reservoir dimension is estimated as a 58.5-foot diameter tank with a height of 30 feet. The tank would be placed on a pad elevation of 1,530 feet located on Lot “T” at the west end of the project site. A 20-foot wide paved access road would be provided from “G” Street at a maximum grade of 12 percent.

Table 4.N-15
Water Demand Summary
Watershed ID Tributary Lots (du) Area (acres)
Average
Day
Demand
(mgd)
Maximum
Day Demand
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Demand
(mgd)
Proposed Project
Zone 5 58 31.0 0.110 0.198 0.276
Zone 6A 234 113.0 0.400 0.720 1.004
Total 292 144.0 0.510 0.918 1.280
Source: Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project (“Water Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15, 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-38
The water storage required for the single-family residences within the proposed Zone 5 pressure system would be supplied from the existing excess storage capacities from the City’s Zone 5 Reservoirs. According to the Water Report, there is 1.7 mg of excess storage in the existing Zone 5 system.

The proposed Zone 6A Booster Pump Station is located along proposed “A” Street within the Zone 4 Reservoir site at the southeast corner of the project site. It is sized for maximum demands for Zone 6A and would include one supply pump at 500 gpm, one standby pump at 500 gpm, and one fire flow pump at 1,500 gpm. The pump station would be situated on a pad elevation of 1,220 feet. The total dynamic head (“TDH”) for these pumps would consist of static lift, pipe friction losses, and minor system losses. The maximum static head is 364 feet corresponding to minimum and maximum tank levels of approximately 20 percent and 100 percent of tank capacity, respectively. The total estimated friction and minor losses is six feet based on 5,735 feet of 12-inch piping, resulting in a TDH of 370 feet. The booster pump station would have two parallel 12-inch discharge lines that would be looped within the project site and supply the proposed Zone 6A Reservoir located at the west end of the project site. The Zone 6A Reservoir is sized for a total storage capacity of 0.6 mg.

As discussed in the Existing Conditions section above, the City’s 2010 UWMP finds that the CDWP is able to meet full service demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years; refer to Table 4.N-5 through Table 4.N-9. As indicated, the total City water demand by 2035 is estimated to reach 45,878 AFY for the normal year; 53,555 AFY for the single year; 53,555 AFY for multiple dry year number one (2035); 53,735 AFY for multiple dry year number two (2036); and 53,915 AFY for multiple dry year number three (2037). As mentioned above, the total estimated water demand generated by the proposed project is approximately 0.51 mgd (571 AFY) average day demand, 0.91 mgd (1,019 AFY) maximum day demand, and 1.28 mgd (1,4354 AFY) peak hour demand. The 1,020 AFY maximum day demand associated with the proposed project would constitute approximately 2.22 percent of the City’s total projected water demand for normal year in 2035 and approximately 1.90 percent of the total projected demand for the single year in 2035 and multiple dry years.

The City is therefore capable of meeting the water demands of the proposed project in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2035. As adequate water supplies and treatment facilities exist today, with adequate future supply and treatment capacity forecasted to exist for all phases of the proposed project, no additional expansion of these water supplies or treatment plants would be required.

Table 4.N-16
Reservoir Storage Requirements
Water Zone ID Maximum Day Demand (mgd)
Required
Operational
Storage (mg)
Required
Fire Flow
Storage
(mg)
Required
Terminal
Storage (mg)
Total
Required
Storage (mg)
Proposed Project
Zone 5 (1380’ HWL) 0.198 0.099 0.000 0.010 0.109
Zone 6A (1560’ HWL) 0.720 0.360 0.180 0.050 0.590
Source: Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project (“Water Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15, 2014.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-39
Project landscaping must comply with the applicable landscaping requirements specified in Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of the CMC. The proposed landscape design would incorporate water conservation measures including water-conserving planting, efficient irrigation systems, and water-conserving fixtures.

The landscape concept would consist of moderately drought-tolerant sustainable plantings and trees.

Landscaping would also utilize weather-based, water-conserving irrigation technology and management.

Appropriate BMPs would be incorporated into landscape design. Sustainable programming would be used to maximize efficient by conserving water. Refer to Figure 2-9, Landscape Plan – Northerly Portion of Skyline Heights, and Figure 2-10, Landscape Plan – Southerly Portion of Skyline Heights of Section 2.0, Project Description, for landscaping details.

As mentioned above under Existing Conditions, existing water facilities are located within the project site.

Refer to Figure 4.N-4, Proposed Water Facilities Plan, which illustrates the proposed water facility improvements and their relative sizes based on the water system model results of the Water Study. Further, 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 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.

As such, water capacity is not anticipated to be an issue based on the implementation of the above- mentioned projects. However, should any necessary off-site improvements not already be in place prior to completion of the project’s first development phase, construction of such improvements would be the sole responsibility of the project Applicant. Further, the connections would be provided by the proposed project in consultation with the CDWP, with the project Applicant responsible for payment of all applicable water connection fees required by the CDWP and set forth in Section 13.14.040 and 13.14.050 of the CMC (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1). Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources and no new or expanded entitlements are necessary.

Overall, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts 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.
(2) Wastewater
Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-40
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 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 regards to a less than significant level. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Thus, impacts regarding wastewater would be less than significant. (a) Construction
During construction of the proposed project, a negligible amount of wastewater would be generated by construction workers. It is anticipated that portable toilets would be provided by a private company and the waste disposed of off-site. Wastewater generation from construction activities is not anticipated to cause a measurable increase in wastewater flows at a point where, and at a time when, a sewer’s capacity is already constrained or that would cause a sewer’s capacity to become constrained. Additionally, construction is not anticipated to generate wastewater flows that would substantially or incrementally exceed the future scheduled capacity of the City’s WRF 1 and WRF 3. Therefore, construction impacts to the local wastewater conveyance and treatment system would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would require construction of on-site sewer lines and replacement or relocation of off-site sewer lines, which would require construction activities that could affect the sewer mains serving the area. However, any such effects would be temporary and would occur in accordance with all applicable regulations of the CDWP as enforced under the required City construction permits which have been formulated to avoid significant impacts, such as disruptions of sewer service to existing on-site and adjacent uses and/or sewage spills during the construction period. Further, no new facilities or infrastructure are required for the off-site sewer system. Therefore, project construction impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Water Facili es Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-4
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-42
This page is intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-43
(b) Operational
The City is responsible for wastewater collection and conveyance from the project site to the treatment plants. Table 4.N-17, Proposed Sewage Flows, depicts the calculated values for average dry weather flow (“ADWF”) and the peak dry weather flow (“PDWF”) for the proposed project. The calculations are based on the assumption of 270 gpd/du for low density residential development as stated in the CDWP 2012 Design Policy. The Wastewater Report estimates the proposed project would produce approximately 78,840 gpd (or 0.122 cubic feet per second [“cfs”]). The estimated peak dry weather flow for the proposed project is based on the City’s peak flow equation of approximately 0.281 cfs.

As displayed in Figure 4.N-5, Preliminary Sewer Layout, the proposed project would require the following sewer infrastructure to be constructed and improved:

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 City of Corona Sewer Master Plan estimates that the proposed project would produce approximately 278,050 gpd (or 0.43 cfs) which is 3.5 times more than the average flows projected for the proposed project 78,840 gpd (or 0.122 cfs). The estimated peak dry weather flow for the proposed project based on the City’s peak flow equation is approximately 0.281 cfs. As a result, the Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 would be able to accommodate the anticipated sewer flows from the proposed project. All on-site sewer facilities are 8- inch gravity sewer pipes and are contained within the proposed street right-of-ways. The proposed project on-site sewer facilities are preliminary estimates of the anticipated sewer facilities necessary to service the project needs. Given that adequate treatment capacity currently exists to meet project-related demands and adequate capacity is anticipated to exist with project implementation, no additional expansion of these wastewater treatment facilities would be required. Further, the sewer facilities and connections would be provided by the proposed project in consultation with the CDWP, with the project Applicant responsible for Table 4.N-17
Proposed Sewage Flows
Project Sewer Drainage
Area Tributary Sewershed No. of Lots
ADWF
MDG
ADWF
CFS
PDWF
CFS
Area 1 14 45 0.012 0.019 0.050
Area 2 14 196 0.053 0.082 0.195
Subtotal 241 0.065 0.101 0.236
Area 3 16 51 0.014 0.021 0.056
Project Total 292 0.079 0.122 0.281
Source: Preliminary Wastewater Report for the Skyline Heights Project (“Wastewater Report”), prepared by KWC Engineers, dated May 15 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-44
payment of all applicable sewer capacity and connection fees required by the CDWP and set forth in Section

13.08.600 of the CMC (Mitigation Measure UTIL-2). The sewer fees fund construction of incremental expansions of the sewage system to ensure that adequate capacity exists for future development. The fees may be used for the retirement of sewer, bonds and for payment of interest thereon and for the acquisition, operation, maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of the sewerage system. The funds and payment however, shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street sewers or lateral pipelines as distinguished from the main trunk, interceptor and outfall sewer pipelines. As such, impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities and capacity would be less than significant upon compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure.

The wastewater plants are required to comply with associated WDRs and any updates or new permits issued. WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. The wastewater treatment requirements issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB) for Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 was developed to ensure that adequate levels of treatment would be provided for the wastewater flows emanating from all land uses within its service area. The project proposes site design BMPs aimed at avoiding or reducing the water quality impacts of the proposed project and would incorporate all applicable BMPs for construction, post-construction/operation, and water quality treatment to ensure compliance with the NPDES. New development pursuant to implementation of the proposed project must comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and other applicable WDRs, as enforced by the SARWQCB and the California SWRCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant in this regard.
(3) Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
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 design features would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would include new on-site stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with the recent City of Corona and Riverside County and Water Conservation District design requirements. New off-site storm drain pipes would be constructed with the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project. Environmental impacts associated with development of the Project, including on-site drainage facilities have been evaluated throughout this document. Future development would include LID features for storm water quality improvement where none exist today. Potential LID features may include storm water planters, permeable pavement and proprietary bioretention systems. Through the development of the project-specific Drainage Report and WQMP, which are included in Appendix H, the appropriate site design, source control, BMPs, SD-BMPS, SC- BMPs, and LID control features would be implemented to improve water quality in the Temescal Creek and Santa Ana River. As concluded in this document, all potentially significant impacts associated with development of the proposed project, including on-site and off-site stormwater drainage facilities would be less

Preliminary Sewer Layout FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-5
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-46
This page is intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-47
than significant after compliance with applicable regulatory requirements implementation of the project design features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (4) Solid Waste
Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Threshold Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? 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. (a) Construction
The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes and associated supporting infrastructure. Project construction would involve demolition of the existing onsite structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication to be developed within three phases.

Each of these activities would generation construction and demolition (“C&D”) waste including, but not limited to soil, wood, asphalt, concrete, paper, glass, plastic, metals, and cardboard that would be disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill.

Solid waste generated from the proposed project would be hauled away by WMI and disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill. The permitted daily maximum at landfill is 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 145,530,000 tons. The landfill is projected to have sufficient capacity to accept this daily waste volume through 2045.22 Based on implementation of the proposed project and associated volume of C&D waste, the volume of construction-related waste requiring disposal is not expected to be substantial. Sustainable programming would be used to minimize construction impacts and reducing construction and post-construction waste. As such, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs during construction activities and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures UTIL-3 and UTIL-4, although not required, are proposed to provide assurance that construction-related solid waste impacts remain less than significant to the extent feasible.
(b) Operation
Development of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 3,57123 pounds per day (or approximately 1.79 tons per day) of solid waste. The project’s daily solid waste generation represents 22 CalRecycle Website, Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33- AA-0217/Detail/, accessed July 2014. 23 12.23 pounds per household per day = 292 X 12.23 = 3,571 pounds per household per day (Source: Solid Waste Generation Based on generation factors provided by the CalRecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm, accessed July 2014).

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-48
approximately 0.01124 percent of the maximum permitted daily capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill. This amount of solid waste is well within the permitted capacity of 16,064 tons per day for the El Sobrante Landfill, which is projected to accept this maximum daily volume of waste through the year 2045. Further, the project Applicant shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City’s Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills as prescribed in Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 below.

It should be noted, however, that this mitigation measures is not required to reduce impacts to less than significant, as is the case for construction-related impacts discussed above. Based on the remaining capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County’s landfill system to meet the needs of the proposed project. Based on the above, project-generated waste would not exceed the capacity of landfills serving the project area. In addition, the proposed project would not generate solid waste at a level that would generate the need for new or substantially expanded recycling or disposal facilities. The available capacity of the existing and/or planned future landfills would not be exceeded, and therefore impacts regarding solid waste generation from project operations would be less than significant.

All uses within the City that generate solid waste, including the proposed project, are required to coordinate with a waste hauler to develop collection and recyclable materials for the project on a common schedule as set forth in the applicable local, regional, and state programs. Additionally, all development within the City is required to comply with applicable elements of SB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste disposal standards; thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the El Sobrante Landfill is reduced and no hazards waste is received in accordance with existing regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
(5) 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 environmental effect? 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 the CMC). This impact is considered less than significant. (a) California Urban Water Management Plan Act
The City is consistent with the California Urban Water Management Plan Act, as evidenced by its approved 2010 UWMP. The proposed project is within the range of development anticipated in the UWMP, which indicates that the City will be able to meet future demand for water. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 24 1.79 tons per day generated by the proposed project/16,064 tons of solid waste per day permitted at the El Sobrante Landfill x 100 =

0.004 percent.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-49
(b) Senate Bill 610, Senate Bill 221 and Senate Bill 7
The proposed project would introduce 292 single-family detached residential dwellings. Therefore, a WSA is not required for the proposed project. The proposed project will be in the service areas of the respective water supplier, CDWP, who must also abide by the water conservation and planning goals of SB 7, to reduce the per capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020 statewide. As future development would be required to comply with the provisions of SB 7, as applicable, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (c) California Code of Regulations
The proposed project would meet or exceed the water efficiency requirements set forth by Title 20 of the CCR through incorporation of the City’s recommended water conservation measures, the project’s design features, which are generally more stringent than the requirements set forth by Title 20 of the CCR. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with Title 20 and impacts would be less than significant. (d) City of Corona Municipal Code
As noted above, Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of Title 13, Public Services includes water conservation provisions that require that overall water consumption be reduced by 15 percent in an effort to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on City users. The Water Conservation Plan would (1) protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and property owners of the city; (2) assure the maximum beneficial use of city water supplies; and (3) attempt to provide sufficient water supplies to meet the basic needs of human consumption, sanitation and fire protection. Chapter 13.14, Water and Sewer Regulations, and Chapter 13.08, Public Sewerage System Waste Regulations establishes procedures and requirements for water and sewer connections and details regarding permits, water and sewer use charges, and water and sewer connection fees. As required by the City, the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable fees for new water and sewer connections, and residents would contribute to ongoing maintenance of City-owned facilities through payment of property taxes and other mechanisms. Given that the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable fees and comply with the City’s water and sewer regulations, the proposed project would be consistent with the City and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
(e) City of Corona General Plan Consistency Analysis
The City’s General Plan contains a number of goals and policies that are relevant to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste, including goals and policies contained in the Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services. As discussed below in Table 4.N-18, General Plan Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-50
Table 4.N-18
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement Infrastructure and Public Services – Water Systems
Goal 7.1 – Establish and maintain a secure water supply, water treatment, distribution, pumping and storage
systems to meet the current and projected future daily
and peak water demands of Corona.

Consistent. As discussed within this Section, the CDWP is capable of meeting the water demands of the proposed
project and the City in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2035. Further, the Project would be
required to implement the prescribed mitigation
measures (refer to Mitigation Measure UTIL-1) which
would ensure the adequacy of water availability and
infrastructure to meet the demands of the project. Water connections would be provided by the Project in
consultation with the CDWP, with the Project responsible for payment of all applicable water connection fees,
pursuant to CDWP requirements.

Policy 7.1.7 – Require adequate water supply,
distribution, pumping, storage, and treatment facilities to be operational prior to the issuance of building permits.

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.1.

Policy 7.1.9 – Require all new development to be served from an approved domestic water supply.

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.1.

Policy 7.1.10 – Through engineering design and
construction practices, ensure that existing and new
development does not degrade the City’s surface waters
and groundwater supplies
Consistent. See response to Goal 7.1.

Goal 7.2 – Minimize water consumption through site
design, the use of water conservation systems and other techniques.

Consistent. The proposed project would include
measures during site design and operation to minimize
water consumption. Measures could include water- efficient fixtures and other project design features.

Policy 7.2.3 – In compliance with State Law, and
implemented through the City’s Building Permit process, continue to require the incorporation of best available technologies for water conservation features in the design of all new construction and site development including, but not limited to, water saving toilets, showerheads,
faucets, and water conserving irrigation systems.

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.2.

Policy 7.2.7 – Require the use of recycled water for
landscaped irrigation, grading, and other non-contact uses in new developments, parks, golf courses, sports fields, and comparable uses, where feasible.

Consistent. The proposed project would employ a green
strategy that would incorporate environmentally friendly sustainable design principles, including water-wise
planting and irrigation; water quality and stormwater best management practices, such as creative rainwater
capture; bioswale water cleansing; permeable paving and sub-surface water storage or recharge systems, if
necessary in lieu of detention basins; and use of recycled materials and other green techniques.

Policy 7.2.9 – Require that grading plans be designed and implemented to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing
rainwater onsite and stored on a temporary, short-term
basis to facilitate groundwater recharge rather than
relying solely on community drainage facilities.

Consistent. Proposed project grading plans would be
reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that the
proposed project would comply with all City
requirements.

Policy 7.2.10 – Encourage the use of rainwater capture
and storage facilities in residential and nonresidential Consistent. See response to Policy 7.2.7.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.N-18 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-51
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement developments.

Infrastructure and Public Services – Sewer/Wastewater Systems Policy 7.4.2 – As a condition of approval, require that development be connected to the municipal sewer system
and ensure that adequate capacity is available for the
treatment of generated wastewater flows and safely
dispose of generated sludge.

Consistent. A sewer study has been prepared for the
proposed project, which will require review and approval by the City, and the proposed project would be required to comply with all recommendations therein to ensure that
adequate capacity is available for the treatment of
generated wastewater flows. Additionally, the proposed
project would be required to pay its fair share of fees for infrastructure upgrades on adjacent streets, per the City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure UTIL-2).

Policy 7.4.3 – Require that all new development submit a sewer analysis to the satisfaction of the City of Corona prior to the issuance of building Permits.

Consistent. See response to Policy 7.4.2.

Policy 7.4.5 – Require that wastewater flows be
minimized in existing and future developments through
water conservation and recycling efforts.

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.2.

Policy 7.5.2 – Continue to require all sewer discharges to comply with the City's Waste Discharge Pretreatment and Source Control Program outlined in the City's Ordinance.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all
City discharge requirements and programs.

Policy 7.5.4 – Continue to implement, as appropriate, the requirements of the NPDES and SCAQMD regulations,
including requiring the use of Best Management Practices by businesses in the City.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all
NPDES and SCAQMD regulations as well as applicable
BMPs to reduce impacts on water and air quality.

Infrastructure and Public Services – Storm Drainage
Policy 7.6.5 – Ensure the provision of storm water
conveyance and storage control facilities to be constructed coincident with new development. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would include new on-site
stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with the recent City of Corona and Riverside County and Water Conservation District design
requirements.

Policy 7.6.6 – Require new development to prepare
hydrologic studies to assess storm runoff impacts on the local and sub regional storm drainage systems, and, if
warranted, require new development to provide adequate
drainage facilities and to mitigate increases in stormwater flows and/or cumulative increases in regional flows.

Developers of proposed projects are to submit a final
drainage plan for the City Engineer’s review and approval.

Consistent. A hydro study has been prepared for the
proposed project, which will require review and approval by the City, and the proposed project would be required to comply with all recommendations therein. Policy 7.6.10 – Apply collected developers fees toward the construction of new facilities.

Consistent. The project Applicant would be required to
pay any necessary fees deemed mandatory per the City
requirements.

Source: City of Corona General Plan, PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-52

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
(1) Water Supply and Water Infrastructure
As discussed above, the CDWP, as the public water service provider, is required to prepare and periodically update its respective UWMP to plan and provide for water supplies to serve existing and projected demands.

The UWMP prepared by the City accounts for existing development within its service area, as well as projected growth anticipated to occur through redevelopment of existing uses and development of new uses.

Additionally, under the provisions of SB 610, the CDWP is required to prepare a comprehensive WSA for each new development “project” (as defined by Section 10912 of the CWC) within its service areas. The types of projects subject to the requirements of SB 610 tend to be larger projects (i.e., residential projects with at least 500 dwelling units, shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, etc.) that may or may not have been included within the growth projections of the UWMP. The WSAs for such projects, in conformance with the UWMP, evaluate the quality and reliability of existing and projected water supplies, as well as alternative sources of water supply and measures to secure alternative sources if needed. In addition, as described above, SB 221 requires that for residential subdivisions with 500 units or more that are in non-urban areas, written verification from the service provider be submitted indicating sufficient water supply is available to serve the proposed subdivision, or the local agency shall make a specified finding that sufficient water supplies are or will be available prior to completion of the project.

Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR identifies 32 related projects all located in the City that are anticipated to be developed within the vicinity of the project site. These 32 related projects would cumulatively contribute, in conjunction with the proposed project, to water demand in the project area. As shown in Table 4.N-19, Estimated Cumulative Water Demand, related projects in conjunction with the proposed project would have an average daily water demand of approximately 2,444,811 gpd or 2,739 AFY.

As stated above, the City’s 2010 UWMP projects that total yearly water demand will decrease from 44,331 AFY in 2010 to 39,005 AFY in 2035, which is a decrease of 5,326 AFY or 12 percent over that 25-year period.

With the anticipated water demand increase of 2,739 AFY per year from the development of the proposed project and related projects, the demand for water would fall within the available and projected water demand presented in the City UWMP.

The City is faced with various ongoing challenges in securing its future water supplies due to droughts, environmental restrictions, and climate change. The City is planning to overcome these challenges by expanding their water conservation efforts through public education, installing high efficient water fixtures, providing incentives, and expanding the City's outdoor water conservation program. To increase recycled water use, the City is expanding the recycled water distribution system to provide water for irrigation, industrial use, and groundwater recharge. Furthermore, given that the UWMP plans and provides for water supplies to serve existing and projected needs, including those of future growth and development as may occur through related projects, and that the requirements of SB 610, SB 221 and SB 7 provide means to ensure that the water supply needs of large development projects are carefully considered relative to the City’s ability to adequately meet future needs, it is anticipated that the City would be able to supply the demands of the proposed project and related projects through the foreseeable future. In addition, compliance with the City’s recommended water conservation measures would reduce the water

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-53 Table 4.N-19
Estimated Cumulative Water Demand
Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(acres)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 12.25 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11- 006) - - - - - - 2.15 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09- 004) - - 1.69 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760,
Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06- 009)
194 - - - - - -
Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12- 005)453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10-017)
60 - - - - - - Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661,
PP08-001)
442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 76 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10- 001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 0.89 4.06 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14- 001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM
29503R, PP08-008)
- - 14.0 - - 14.0 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM
34890, PP06-006)
- - - 26.6 - - -

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
Table 4.N-19 (Continued)
Estimated Cumulative Water Demand
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-54 Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(acres)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Meridian Dos Lagos, LP (PM 34851, PP06- 011)- - - 3.6 - - - Fu Bang Group (PM 33151, PP04-018) 92 - - - - - - Rexco Development (PP13-006) 354 - - - - - - Rexco Development - - - - - 29.0 - Arrantine Hills Specific Plan (SP09-001) 1,621 - 59.1 - - 18.6 - North Main Street District 404 - - - - - - Berzansky/PB Development - - - - 3.6 - - Westliving 112 - - - - - - Vulcan Materials - - - - - 100.0 - Sanre Corporation - - - - - 3.0 - Trammell Crow - - - - - 26.34 - Griffco Land LLC 125 - - - - - - Citrus Circle Apartments 42 - - - - - - Houman /Patel - - - 1.6 - - - ASTA /Strata 45 - - - - - - Subtotal Related Projects 4,864 0.89 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 Proposed Project 290 - - - - - - TOTAL 5,154 0.89 93.86 30.2 3.60 149.85 2.15 - Cumulative Water Demand Estimate a Total Water Demand (gpd) 1,855,440 28,560 118,264 48,082 5,443 386,958 2,064 2,444,811 Total Water Demand (AFY) 2,078 32 133 54 6 434 2 2,739
Notes: gpd = gallons per day a
The water demand would be consistent with the proposed sewer generation rate. To be conservative, 20 percent was added (to account for outdoor water use).

Refer to Table 4.N-20, Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation. One acre-foot (AF) is equal to 325,851 gallons.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014. Tom Koper, City of Corona Department of Water and Power. City of Corona Sewer Master Plan, 2005.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-55
consumption estimates of the proposed project and related projects, thereby reducing the demand on overall supplies available to the City.

Overall, the City would have adequate amounts of water to meet future water demands for the service area with the addition of the proposed project and related projects, and no significant cumulative impacts related to water demand would occur and the proposed project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.

Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the 32 related projects identified in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR, would cumulatively increase distribution demands on the existing water infrastructure system. However, each related project would be subject to discretionary review to assure that the existing public utility facilities would be adequate to meet the domestic and fire water demands of each project. Furthermore, the CDWP conducts ongoing evaluations to ensure facilities are adequate to meet anticipated growth in the respective service areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts on the water infrastructure system would be less than significant. (2) Wastewater
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR identifies 32 related projects, all of which are located in the City within the CDWP service area. These 32 related projects would cumulatively contribute, in conjunction with the proposed project, to the wastewater generation in the project area. As shown in Table 4.N-20, Cumulative Wastewater Generation, the estimated wastewater generation associated with related projects and the proposed project on average is approximately 2,037,342 gpd, with a peak day flow of approximately 6,591,493 gpd. As discussed above, the City is responsible for wastewater collection and conveyance to the City’s WRF 1 and WRF 3 which would serve the proposed project and all 32 related projects based on their location, maintains adequate treatment capacity. According to the City Sewer Master Plan, the City’s treatment plants had a combined treatment capacity of 15.5 mgd in 2005 and processed an average flow of 13.45 mgd in 2010, leaving a 2.05 mgd of available capacity. The future reliable treatment capacity for all three treatment plants is expected to be approximately 21 mgd with proposed improvements. As such, average flows would be well within the existing treatment capacity of WRF 1 and WRF 3. Nonetheless, as was discussed for the proposed project, CDWP periodically evaluates its conveyance and treatment facilities in order to ensure that they meet the growing demands within its service area, and in particular in response to planned future development. It is assumed, therefore, that as part of its normal planning efforts the CDWP would expand its infrastructure as necessary to meet projected demands. Furthermore, as with the proposed project, the wastewater generation estimates presented in Table 4.N-20 do not account for reductions in wastewater generation that would occur with implementation of water conservation measures, which would serve to reduce wastewater generation rates. For these reasons, the cumulative impacts of the project on sewer conveyance and treatment infrastructure would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.
(3) Solid Waste
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR identifies 32 related projects that are anticipated to be developed within the vicinity of the project site. It is conservatively assumed that each of these projects would contribute solid waste to the landfill serving the project site. Development of these related projects would generate solid waste during their respective construction periods and on an on-going basis

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-56 Table 4.N-20
Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation
Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 12.25 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11-006) - - - - - - 2.15 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09- 004) - - 1.69 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760,
Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06-009)
194 - - - - - - Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12-005) 453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10- 017) 60 - - - - - - Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661,
PP08-001)
442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 76 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10- 001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 119 4.06 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14-001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM 29503R, PP08-008)
- - 14.0 - - 14.0 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM 34890, PP06-006)
- - - 26.6 - - - Meridian Dos Lagos, LP (PM 34851, PP06- 011) - - - 3.6 - - - Fu Bang Group (PM 33151, PP04-018) 92 - - - - - - Rexco Development (PP13-006) 354 - - - - - -

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.N-20 (Continued)
Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-57 Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Rexco Development - - - - - 29.0 - Arrantine Hills Specific Plan (SP09-001) 1,621 - 59.1 - - 18.6 - North Main Street District 404 - - - - - - Berzansky/PB Development - - - - 3.6 - - Westliving 112 - - - - - - Vulcan Materials - - - - - 100.0 - Sanre Corporation - - - - - 3.0 - Trammell Crow - - - - - 26.34 - Griffco Land LLC 125 - - - - - - Citrus Circle Apartments 42 - - - - - - Houman /Patel - - - 1.6 - - - ASTA /Strata 45 - - - - - - Subtotal Related Projects 4,864 119 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 Proposed Project 290 - - - - - - TOTAL 5,154 119 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 - Cumulative Wastewater Generation Estimate a Average Day (gpd) 1,546,200 23,800 98,553 40,068 4,536 322,465 1,720 2,037,342 Peak Day (gpd)b 4,947,840 76,160 315,370 128,218 14,515 1,031,886 5,504 6,591,493 Notes: gpd = gallons per day; ac = acre. a
Wastewater generation based on sewage generation factors provided by Tom Koper, City of Corona Department of Water and Power and the City of Corona Sewer Master Plan, 2005. Rates applied include Rural Residential = 300 gpd/du; High Density = 200 gpd/du; Commercial Business District = 1,050 gpd/ac; Office Professional = 1,260 gpd/ac; General Industrial = 1,155 gpd/ac; and Institutional = 800 gpd/ac. b For the purposes of a conservative analysis, peak day flows are assumed to be 3.2 times average flows.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014. Tom Koper, City of Corona Department of Water and Power. City of Corona Sewer Master Plan, 2005.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-58
during their operation. Construction of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would generate C&D waste and cumulatively increase the need for waste disposal at the El Sobrante Landfill. As stated above, the El Sobrante Landfill will have adequate capacity until 2045. As such, future shortage of disposal capacity at unclassified landfills is not expected. Further, related projects would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis and thus, are anticipated to recycle C&D waste to the maximum extent feasible. Based on the above, cumulative solid waste impacts to unclassified landfills due to project construction are concluded to be less than significant, and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

The estimated solid waste generation resulting from operation of related projects is shown in Table 4.N-21, Cumulative Solid Waste Generation. As indicated therein, the solid waste generation for the proposed project and related projects is forecasted to be approximately 48,475 pounds per day or 24.25 tpd. However, this estimate of solid waste generation from the proposed project and related projects does not take into account solid waste reduction measures that would be implemented and does not discount solid waste generation from existing uses that would be removed as part of related projects.

The 24.25 tpd of cumulative solid waste generated per day would represent approximately 0.15 percent of the estimated daily capacity of the El Sobrante Landfill which would accommodate solid waste from the project site and related project sites. The provision of additional capacity to accommodate the cumulative disposal needs of the proposed project and related projects, if necessary at some point in the future, is the responsibility of local, county, and state solid waste management agencies and may become available as these agencies develop solutions to meet the future disposal needs at a regional level (e.g., expanding existing landfills, transporting waste to other landfills, converting waste to energy, recycling, and waste reduction). Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, the related projects would be subject to the source reduction and recycling requirements established by the local jurisdiction in accordance with AB 939 (i.e., divert 50 percent of the solid waste generated from landfills through waste reduction, recycling, and composting). As with the proposed project, future projects shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City’s Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills, thus reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills described above. Based on these considerations, cumulative impacts regarding solid waste would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Nonetheless, implementation of applicable mitigation measures would provide assurance that the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts on a regional level remains less than significant to the extent feasible.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures provided are applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented, as necessary, to ensure that impacts related to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste are less than significant.
a. Water Supply and Water Infrastructure
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.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-59 Table 4.N-21
Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(square feet)
Office
(square
feet)
Medical
Office
(square
feet)
Industrial
(square
feet)
School
(square
feet) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 177,822 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11-006) - - - - - - 93,684 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09- 004) - - 18,400 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760, Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06-009)
194 - - - - - - Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12-005) 453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10- 017) 60 - - - - - -
Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661, PP08- 001)
442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 1,092,485 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10- 001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 119 44,200 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14-001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM 29503R, PP08-008)
- - 108,200 - - 108,200 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM 34890, PP06-006)
- - - 289,613 - - - Meridian Dos Lagos, LP (PM 34851, PP06-011) - - - 35,931 - - - Fu Bang Group (PM 33151, PP04-018) 92 - - - - - - Rexco Development (PP13-006) 354 - - - - - -

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
Table 4.N-21 (Continued)
Estimated Solid Waste Generation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-60 Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(square feet)
Office
(square
feet)
Medical
Office
(square
feet)
Industrial
(square
feet)
School
(square
feet) Total
Rexco Development - - - - - 420,457 - Arrantine Hills Specific Plan (SP09-001) 1,621 - 643,599 - - 267,371 - North Main Street District 404 - - - - - - Berzansky/PB Development - - - - 39,200 - - Westliving 112 - - - - - - Vulcan Materials - - - - - 1,437,480 - Sanre Corporation - - - - - 36,658 - Trammell Crow - - - - - 531,904 - Griffco Land LLC 125 - - - - - - Citrus Circle Apartments 42 - - - - - - Houman /Patel - - - 17,400 - - - ASTA /Strata 45 - - - - - - Subtotal Related Projects 4,864 119 Proposed Project 290 - - - - - - TOTAL 5,154 119 814,399 342,944 39,200 4,072,377 93,684 - Cumulative Solid Waste Generation Estimate c Total (lbs/day) 20,616 476 4,072 2,058 235 20,362 656 48,475 Total (tpd) 10.31 0.24 2.04 1.03 0.12 10.18 0.33 24.25
Notes: s.f. = square feet; k.s.f. = thousand square feet; lbs. = pounds; tpd. = tons per day. a Sherborn, LLC proposes 29 industrial lots on 76 acres. Total industrial use square footage unknown at this time but assumed at an FAR of 0.33, similar to other industrial projects in the City. b
Vulcan Materials proposes expansion of existing surface mine by 100 acres. Total mining use square footage unknown at this time, but is assumed at an FAR of 0.33. c Solid Waste Generation Based on generation factors provided by the CalRecycle website, refer to Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/default.htm. Accessed November 2014, and assumes 4 lbs/unit/day for residential uses, 6 lbs/k.s.f./day for office uses, 5 lbs/k.s.f./day for commercial uses, 4 lbs/room/day for hotel/motel uses, 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft/day for industrial uses and 0.007 lbs/square foot/per day for schools.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014. CalRecycle Website, accessed July 2014.

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-61
b. Wastewater
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.
c. Solid Waste
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.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Upon implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to water supply, water infrastructure, and wastewater. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs during construction activities. Thus, solid waste impacts during construction would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures UTIL-3 and UTIL-4 are proposed to provide assurance that construction-related solid waste impacts remain less than significant to the extent feasible, while Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 would minimize long-term operational solid waste generation that would require landfill disposal. The project would not generate solid waste at a level that would generate the need for new or substantially expanded recycling or disposal facilities, and the available capacity of the existing and/or planned landfills would not be exceeded; therefore, impacts associated with solid waste generation from project operations would be less than significant. As the proposed project would comply with all State, regional, and local plans, policies, and regulations relating to solid waste, impacts regarding consistency with the regulatory environment would be less than significant.

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-62
This page intentionally blank.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
O. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the impact of implementation of the proposed Skyline Heights Project on agricultural resources in the project area and the region. The analysis presented in this section is based on information contained in the City of Corona General Plan, relevant maps and reports provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and guidance provided by the California Department of Conservation’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model calculations and associated maps are included in their entirety in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Existing Agricultural Conditions
(1) Regional Conditions
The Inland Empire comprises a small portion of California’s agriculture industry. In 2009, the value of all agricultural production within the Inland Empire totaled $1.4 billion, compared with $41.4 billion in California as a whole.1 On the County level, in 2011, Riverside County’s total gross agricultural valuation was $1.3 billion in 2011, an increase of 17 percent to $188.6 million over 2010 values and a new record for the County. Agricultural Crops production rose 15 percent to $990 million, while Livestock and Poultry increased 24 percent to $292 million.2 Agricultural crop values historically vary from year to year based upon factors such as production, market fluctuations, and weather. After three years of declines, 2011 presented generally favorable conditions for many of Riverside County's top agricultural producers. Nursery Stock, the highest valued crop in the County, increased 18 percent to just over $200 million. Milk rose 32 percent to $191.8 million, while Table Grapes increased 28 percent to $118.5 million. Field and Seed Crops rose 84 percent in 2011, the greatest percentage increase of the year. Leading the way was Hay at just over $101 million and now the fourth highest value commodity in the County. Rounding out the top five is Bell Peppers with a slight decrease of 5 percent to $85.2 million.3 Despite the recent turnaround in agricultural production and values in the County of Riverside, the regional agricultural industry currently faces several substantial challenges, including the stagnant economic climate, 1 Chang & Adams Consulting. “Assessing the Economic and Market Trends Affecting Agriculture in the Western Inland Empire”. September 2011. 2 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. “Agricultural Production Report 2011”. Website:
http://www.rivcoag.org/opencms/publications/. 2012. Accessed April 2013. 3 Ibid.

4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-2
the price and availability of irrigation water, the increase in regulation, and the decrease in local support services.4 Aside from declining production values and profits, the agriculture industry has experienced large shifts in production as a result of agricultural land conversion. Between the period of 1990 to 2004, approximately 105,583 acres of agricultural land uses in Southern California were converted to urbanized uses.5 Regionally, the conversion of agricultural land uses to other uses has become increasingly common.

Accordingly, although the project site may ultimately produce a higher LESA Score, there are additional factors that must be considered when evaluating the site as a agricultural resource of significance. These factors include such things as the size of the project site and the present economic viability of onsite agricultural production.
(2) City Agricultural Conditions
As shown in Figure 4.5-6 of the Corona General Plan Technical Background Report, no prime farmland is present in the Prado Basin or Foothill areas of the City’s West Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Foothill portion of which encompasses the project site.6 An area that bisects the Foothill portion of the West SOI has also been designated as unique farmland. Only single, small areas of this farmland type have been mapped in each of the Foothill SOI area. The Foothill area does not contain any areas mapped as farmland of local importance. The Foothill SOI area contains no designated grazing land. Agricultural uses, primarily citrus and avocado groves, comprise 601 acres (approximately 2.5 percent) of Corona’s land area. Agricultural lands are concentrated in the southernmost portion of the City near Cajalco Road. Another smaller agricultural area that is not in production is located in the western part of the City, south of Mangular Avenue.7
(3) Project Site Agricultural Conditions
The project site is not zoned for agriculture or forest land and is not currently being utilized for agricultural operations, but rather is designated for single-family residential (SFR) development by the County of Riverside.8Furthermore, according to the California Department of Conservation (CDC), the entire 270.9- acre project site is designated as “X - Other Land”, as shown in Exhibit 1, Important Farmland Map, in the LESA Model (contained in Appendix B of this Draft EIR). No portion of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local or Statewide Importance as shown in Exhibit 3, Zone of 4 San Bernardino, County of. Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. “2009 Crops and Livestock Report”. Website:
http://ucanr.org/sites/Farm_Management/files/132158.pdf. 2010. Accessed April 2013. 5 American Farmland Trust. “Paving Paradise: A New Perspective on California Farmland Conversion.” Website:
http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ca/Feature%20Stories/PavingParadise.asp. November 2007. Accessed April 2013. 6 City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report. 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Agricultural Resources. March 2004. http://www.discovercorona.com/CityOfCorona/media/Media/CommunityDevelopment/GeneralPlan/CoronaTBR.pdf. Pages 4-85 & 4-89. 7
City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report. Chapter 2: Community Development. March 2004. http://www.discovercorona.com/CityOfCorona/media/Media/CommunityDevelopment/GeneralPlan/CoronaTBR.pdf. Page 2-16. 8 County of Riverside. Ordinance No. 348 – Providing For Land Use Planning and Zoning Regulations and Related Functions of the County of Riverside (as amended through Ordinance No. 348.4773). Effective 07/31/14. http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/zoning/ordnance/Ord.%20348.4773_clean_version.pdf. Accessed November 2014.

December 2015 4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-3
Influence, in the LESA Model, though isolated areas designated as Unique Farmland and Unique Farmland are located to the southeast.
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) was passed in 1965 to protect specific parcels of land in agricultural and open space use. Landowners enter into ten-year contracts with local governments and in return receive lower property tax assessments. Administration of the program involves two sets of records, one being the contracts between the property owner and the County, and the other being a series of agricultural preserve maps establishing the boundaries of lands under contract. The City of Fontana administers this program for the County. Contracts are valid for an initial period of ten years and automatically renew each year to maintain a ten-year life. The property owner or the local planning jurisdiction may initiate a notice of non-renewal, stopping the automatic annual renewals and placing the contract in a status in which it completes its remaining ten-year life. Alternatively, a property owner may cancel a contract, subject to an approval process and penalties, to provide an immediate end to the contract.

The Williamson Act specifies that contracts under the Act may only be cancelled if that cancellation is consistent with purposes of the Act and if the cancellation is in the public interest. To approve cancellation, the City Council must find that the cancellation is either: (1) consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, or (2) in the public interest. (Gov. Code, Section 51282, dubd. (a).) No portion of the project site is currently under a Williamson Act contract.
(2) State Farmland Mapping Program
The CDC established the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982. The FMMP is a non- regulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status and identified by the following categories, collectively referred to as Farmland: Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance. As noted above, no portion of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. Refer to Exhibit 3, Zone of Influence, in the LESA Model (provided in Appendix B of this Draft EIR) for graphic illustrations of agricultural land within the surrounding area.
(3) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands.

Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095).

4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-4
The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. The LESA Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. An assessment of the proposed project’s impacts to agricultural land is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. (4) City of Corona General Plan
The City’s General Plan (2004) includes a specific land use designation for agricultural activities, and also provides various goals and policies related to agricultural activities. The goals and policies relevant to agriculture and forestry resources include the following:

Goal 10.12 – Promote preservation of agricultural (sic) on lands designated as such in the Land Use Element and protect adjacent uses from impacts related to agricultural activities.

Policy 10.12.1 – Allow for and facilitate the continuance of agricultural activities in the City until such time as the land is needed to accommodate population and employment growth.

Policy 10.12.2 – Restrict the development of urban uses such as schools, day care and elder care facilities, hospitals and high density residential within areas used for agriculture whose operations, such as crop production, pesticide spraying, and truck access, may be incompatible and conflict with the urban uses.

Policy 10.12.3 – Require that purchasers of new homes be notified by developers and purchasers of re-sale homes be notified through escrow documents of the presence of, intentions for, characteristics of, and potential impacts of continued agricultural use and operations on nearby lands. Policy 10.12.4 – Implement environmental enhancement programs to establish and sustain both the visual and functional intent of the buffer/greenbelt.

2. PROJECT IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The evaluation of impacts to agricultural resources and operations is based on the amount and quality of agricultural land on-site and in the surrounding area, the effect the proposed project would have on such resources and operations, and the project’s conflicts, if any, with rules, regulations, or contracts affecting agricultural land. As such, impacts are assessed based on the significance criteria provided below, relative to the existing regulations relating to agriculture in the area, and utilizing a quantitative model (i.e., the LESA Model, included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR) for evaluating the agricultural value of land.

December 2015 4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-5
b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of questions to assist in determining whether a proposed project would have a significant impact related to various environmental issues including agriculture and forestry resources. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact relative to agriculture and forestry resources would occur if the project would result in the following:

Threshold 1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-1 below);
Threshold 2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-2 below);
Threshold 3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-2 below);
Threshold 4: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-1 below); or
Threshold 5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-1 below); c. Evaluation of Project Impacts
(1) Farmland and Forest Land Conversion
Threshold Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Threshold Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Threshold Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-6
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.

As discussed above, the California Department of Conservation’s LESA Model is the primary tool used to evaluate the significance of impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses under CEQA. The LESA Model is composed of six different factors, which evaluate the land and the project site. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a project site’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. The factors used in the LESA Model are as follows:
(a) Land Evaluation
The following are the two factors in the LESA model that are used as land evaluation scoring criteria:

Land Capability Classification
Storie Index
(b) Site Assessment
The following are the four factors in the LESA model that are used as site assessment scoring criteria:

Project Size Rating
Water Resources Availability Rating
Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating
Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating
For a proposed project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100-point scale. A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation Factors and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. According to the LESA Model, a project would result in a significant impact on agricultural resources if it meets the criteria specified in Table 9 of the LESA Manual (see Appendix B of this Draft EIR). Table 4.O-1, LESA Significance Ratings, below provides the ratings that determine if a project will result in a significant impact to farmland resources. An overview of the six different factors and the worksheets for the proposed project are contained in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. Therefore, based on the evaluation in the LESA worksheets, the final score for the proposed project is 21.79 points out of a possible 100 points, with a Land Evaluation score of 6.79 and a Site Assessment score of 15.00. The total LESA score is between 0 and 39 points, and both of the scores associated with the Land Evaluation factors or the Site Assessment factors were below the referenced threshold of 20 points. As such, based on the results of the LESA Model, impacts related to farmland conversion would be less than significant.

December 2015 4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-7
No land designated as forest land exists within the project boundaries, and therefore implementation of the proposed project would not directly convert any forest land to non-forest use. Furthermore, although the Cleveland National Forest is located to the south of the project site, implementation of proposed uses on-site would not affect any forest land or forestry resources. As such, impacts related to conversion of forest land would be less than significant.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, as no farmland or forest land exists on the project site that could be affected by its implementation. Therefore, impacts in this regard would also be less than significant.
(2) Conflicts with Zoning or Williamson Act Contracts
Threshold Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Threshold Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
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.

As discussed above, the project site is zoned Rural Residential (R-R) by Riverside County, which allows for single-family residential development with a minimum 5-acre lot size, but would be changed to Single- Family Residential (R-1-7.2, with 7,200 square-foot minimum lot size) under City of Corona zoning as part of the requested approvals. Therefore, no portion of the 270.9-acre project site is currently, or would be, zoned for agricultural or forestry uses. Additionally, as noted above, no portion of the project site is currently enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, and as such, project implementation would not have the potential to Table 4.O-1
LESA Significance Ratings
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 points Not considered significant
40 to 59 points Considered significant only if LE and SA sub-scores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 points Considered significant unless either LE or SA sub-scores are each less than 20 points
80 to 100 points Considered Significant
Source: California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA), Table 9, California Department of Conservation, 1997.

4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-8
result in conflicts in this regard. Impacts related to conflicts with agricultural or forest land zoning, or with Williamson Act contracts, would be less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Future planned urban development in the City and SOI areas could convert existing agricultural land to non- agricultural use. However, such areas are limited to isolated patches

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

1. SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Under CEQA, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a project is a fundamental aspect of the environmental review process. Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an EIR by stating that in addition to determining a project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify alternatives to the project.

Direction regarding the definition of project alternatives is provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) as follows:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce significant impacts relative to the proposed project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”1 The CEQA Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are analyzed.2
In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives should be feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, … and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “no project” alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for the project, if feasible. Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is to be designated. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No Build Alternative, then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.3
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b). 2
Ibid, Section 15126.6(f). 3
Ibid, Section 15126.6(e)(2).

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-2
The first alternative selected for analysis is a No Project Alternative, pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, while the second and third alternatives are intended to address the significant aesthetics and visual resources impacts of the proposed development. Thus, based on the proposed project’s environmental impacts and the objectives established for the project (refer to Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR), the following alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in this Chapter:

1. No Project Alternative

2. Reduced Density Alternative

3. Phase III Only Alternative

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
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.

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.

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-3
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).

3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. The following identifies the alternatives that were considered but rejected from further consideration:

1. Phases I and II Only Alternative: This potential alternative was considered to evaluate impacts of the project produced by the completion of only the first two phases of development. No construction or operation of Phase III or the additional impacts resulting from its implementation would occur. This alternative would reduce overall development by 45 single-family dwelling units. This alternative was not considered because although it would incrementally reduce the intensity of on-site development, and associated need for grading and related aesthetics impacts, it would not result in a development pattern that is notably different than the Reduced Density Alternative, and also would not substantially reduce the significance of the proposed project’s significant visual resources impacts. Therefore, this alternative was rejected for these considerations.

2. Alternative Site Location Alternative: The construction of a new single-family residential development elsewhere in the City was also contemplated. However, the potential for locating a comparable property for single-family residential development that is contiguous with existing residential neighborhoods and served by existing public services and infrastructure is considered low, and acquiring such a property would not be cost-effective for the project Applicant, as the project site is already under Applicant ownership. Additionally, an off-site residential development may involve additional environmental conditions and related impacts that would not be a concern on the existing project site. Therefore, this alternative was not considered for further analysis.

4. ANALYSIS FORMAT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), each alternative is evaluated in sufficient detail to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be fewer, similar, or greater than the corresponding impacts of the project. Furthermore, each alternative is evaluated to determine whether the project objectives, as stated above, will be substantially attained by the alternative. The evaluation of each of the alternatives follows the process described below:

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-4
a. The net environmental impacts of the alternative after implementation of reasonable mitigation measures are determined for each environmental issue area analyzed in the EIR. b. Post-mitigation significant and non-significant environmental impacts of the alternative and the project are compared for each environmental issue area. Where the net impact of the alternative will be clearly less adverse or more beneficial than the impact of the project, the comparative impact is said to be “less.” Where the alternative’s net impact will be clearly more adverse or less beneficial than the project, the comparative impact is said to be “greater.” Where the impacts of the alternative and the project will be roughly equivalent, the comparative impact is said to be “similar.”
c. The comparative analysis of the impacts is followed by a general discussion of whether the underlying purpose and basic project objectives are substantially attained by the alternative.

Table 5-1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Project, provides a summary comparison of the impacts associated with each of the proposed alternatives with the impacts of the project.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-5 Table 5-1
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
A. Aesthetics
Views/Scenic Vistas Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Scenic Resources Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Aesthetics/Visual Character Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Light and Glare Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Shade/Shadow Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
B. Air Quality
AQMP Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Violation of Air Quality Standards - Construction Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Violation of Air Quality Standards - Operational Emissions Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant
Increases Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less)

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-6 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Exposure to Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Odors Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
C. Biological Resources Special Status Species/Habitats Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Riparian Habitat/Sensitive Natural
Communities
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wetlands/Jurisdictional Features Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wildlife Corridors/Migratory Species Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Conflicts With Plans, Policies, or
Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
D. Cultural Resources
Historic Resources No Impact No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) Archaeological Resources Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-7 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Paleontological Resources Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Human Remains Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
E. Geology and Soils
Earthquake Fault Rupture, Ground
Shaking, Ground Failure, and
Landslides
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Soil Erosion Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Seismic Ground Failure Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Expansive Soils Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Septic Tanks and Alternative
Wastewater Disposal Systems Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Similar) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Similar)
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less)

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-8 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Consistency with GHG Reduction
Plans Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials Operations and
Releases Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Hazardous Materials Emissions Near
Schools Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Listed Hazardous Materials Sites Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Airport-Related Hazards No Impact No Impact (Less) No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) Regulatory Consistency and
Emergency Response and Evacuation
Plans
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wildland Fire Hazards Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Degradation/Wastewater Discharge
Requirements
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Groundwater Resources Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-9 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Hydrology and Drainage Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Flood Hazards Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
I. Land Use and Planning
Division of Established Communities Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and
Regulations Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Conflicts with Habitat Conservation
Plans Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) J. Noise
Noise Generation and Compliance
with Noise Standards
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Aircraft/Airport Noise Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-10 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
K. Population, Housing, and Employment
Population Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Housing Less Than Significant No Impact (Greater) Less Than Significant (Greater)
Less Than Significant
(Greater)
Employment Less Than Significant No Impact (Similar) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
L. Public Services
Fire Protection Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Police Protection Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Parks and Recreation Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Schools Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Libraries Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-11 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
M. Transportation
Intersection Impacts Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Roadway Segments Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Hazardous Design Features Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Emergency Access Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Parking Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Alternative
Transportation/Regulatory
Consistency
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Similar) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Similar)
N. Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply and Infrastructure Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Stormwater Drainage Facilities Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Solid Waste Disposal Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-12 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Farmland and Forest Land
Conversion Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Conflicts with Zoning or Williamson
Act Contracts Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-13

5. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
a. Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
(1) Description of Alternative
This Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not occur. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed annexation of the 394.8-acre annexation area would not occur, and construction of 292 singlefamily residential units within the 270.9-acre project site also would not occur. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped state and no residential development or infrastructure improvements would be implemented on-site. However, as noted in previous chapters of this Draft EIR, the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project would still be implemented, which would result in limited physical changes along the northeastern boundary of the project site. (2) Environmental Impact Categories
(a) Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain essentially the same as under existing conditions, and as such there would be no potential for view obstruction or adverse effects to scenic vistas or scenic resources, including effects on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than under the proposed project and less than significant, and thus would eliminate a significant unavoidable impact. Given the lack of grading and associated landform alteration under this Alternative, impacts related to the visual character and quality of the project site would be less than under the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to light and glare and shade/shadow, since no new lighting, reflective surfaces, or other features that could increase lighting, glare, or shade effects would be introduced to the project site such that the potential for such impacts could occur. Impacts related to regulatory consistency would be less than under the proposed project, as there would be no potential for conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations, and therefore no impact would occur.
(b) Air Quality
Under the No Project Alternative, no grading or construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur on-site and thus no additional air pollutant emissions would be generated. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would be consistent with the AQMP, as is the case with the proposed project, but impacts in this regard would be reduced given the absence of new air pollutant emissions sources and lack of additional population growth within the City. No impacts related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, odors, and regulatory consistency would occur and thus impacts would be less than under the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts compared to the proposed project since no construction or additional operational air emissions would occur. (c) Biological Resources
This Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the project site, and therefore it would not result in any impacts to special status species or habitats, riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, wetlands/jurisdictional features, wildlife corridors/migratory species, or conflicts with applicable plans,

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-14
policies, or regulations that are protective of biological resources. As such, given the lack of any physical impacts, impacts would be less than under the proposed project. (d) Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the project site, and no known historic resources exist on the project site. As such, no potential exists for adverse effects on such resources, and no impact would occur as under the proposed project. Additionally, given the lack of new construction on the project site, the potential to encounter archaeological, Native American, or paleontological resources is considered negligible, as well as the potential to encounter human remains. As no excavation would occur under this Alternative, no impacts would occur and thus impacts would be less than under the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations related to cultural resources, and therefore no impacts would occur. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard. (e) Geology and Soils Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not expose additional people and structures to potential adverse effects associated with seismic activity, adverse soils or geologic conditions. As this Alternative would not involve grading or construction activities, there would be no potential for soil erosion impacts and thus impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project. No impacts related to regulatory consistency would occur and therefore would be reduced relative to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would, overall, result in reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This Alternative would not result in any additional air pollutant emissions, including GHG emissions. As such, no impacts related to GHG emission would occur. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with GHG reduction plans, as no new GHG emission would occur. Impacts would be less than under the proposed project.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative not would result in any physical changes to the project site relative to existing conditions, and therefore this Alternative would have no impacts relative to hazardous materials use, transport, storage, and disposal, and would not alter existing hazardous materials conditions at or near the project site. No impacts to airport-related hazards, regulatory consistency and emergency response and evacuation plans, or wildland fire hazards would occur under this Alternative. As such, overall impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project Alternative would result in no physical changes to the project site or result in any effects to on- or off-site drainage or water quality features. Accordingly, this Alternative would not result in any impacts related to water quality degradation or discharge requirements, groundwater resources, hydrology and drainage, flood hazards, or regulatory consistency. As such, impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project.

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-15
(i) Land Use and Planning
The No Project Alternative does not involve any development proposals that would affect land use plans or policies of the City of Corona or other local and regional agencies. The project site would retain its existing City General Plan Sphere of Influence land use designations of Rural Residential I and Open Space/General, its existing Riverside County General Plan Land use designations of Rural Mountainous and Open Space- Conservation Habitat, as well as its County zoning designations of Rural Residential and Open Space. This Alternative would not physically divide an established community or create any potential inconsistencies with City or SCAG land use policies. Although land use impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less in comparison given the lack of the need for annexation into the City of Corona and associated City General Plan and Zoning Amendments and various other approvals. Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plans, but given a lack of biological resources impacts, impacts would be reduced under this Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard.
(j) Noise
Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur within the project site. Nearby sensitive receptors would not be subjected to noise associated with additional construction equipment or construction-related vehicular traffic in the area. New long-term stationary and mobile noise sources would not occur and ambient noise levels would not increase, and no impacts related to groundborne noise and vibration or aircraft/airport noise would occur under this Alternative. Impacts regarding regulatory consistency would not occur and thus would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Thus, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts compared to the proposed project in this regard. (k) Population, Housing, and Employment
This Alternative would not result in any direct or indirect population growth, and therefore no impact would occur in this regard, and thus impacts would be less than the proposed project. No new housing would be associated with this Alternative, and thus it would not provide the project-related benefit of additional housing to help the City meet its State-mandated housing needs requirements. As such, impacts related to housing would be considered greater than the proposed project, even though no physical impact would occur. This Alternative would not provide increased employment opportunities in the area, as would be the case under the proposed project, and thus impacts would be similar. No impacts related to regulatory consistency would occur and thus impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project. (l) Public Services An increased demand for public services would not occur with the No Project Alternative, as no additional land uses would be developed within the project site. No impacts related to regulatory consistency would occur and therefore impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard. (m) Transportation/Traffic
As this Alternative would not result in any new land uses or other physical changes to the traffic system in the area, no additional traffic would occur and therefore no impacts related to intersections, roadway

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-16
segments, hazardous design features, emergency access, or parking supply would occur. No impacts related to alternative transportation and regulatory consistency would occur and therefore impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Overall, this Alternative would have reduced traffic and transportation impacts relative to the proposed project. (n) Utilities and Service Systems An increased demand for water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, and solid waste disposal capacity would not occur with the No Project Alternative, as no additional land uses would be developed within the project site. No impacts related to regulatory consistency would occur and therefore impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard. (o) Agriculture and Forestry Resources The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical alteration to the project site. Therefore, there would be no potential for this Alternative to result in the conversion of farmland or forest lands to non- agricultural or non-forest uses, or otherwise adversely affect agricultural or forestry resources in the area.

As such, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project in this regard.
(3) Impact Summary
As summarized above in Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources (archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, and regulatory consistency), geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population/housing/ employment (population growth and regulatory consistency), public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. This Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project with regard to cultural resources (historic resources) and population/housing/employment (employment growth), but would also result in greater impacts associated with population/housing/employment (housing growth).

This Alternative would, however, eliminate significant unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character) that would otherwise occur under the proposed project.
(4) Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed with urban uses and no physical improvements to infrastructure or other facilities would occur. As such, the No Project Alternative would not achieve or partially fulfill any of the objectives of the proposed project. The proposed project’s stated objectives, as well as the ability of each project Alternative to meet them, are provided below in Table 5-2, Alternatives’ Ability to Meet Project Objectives. Specifically, as summarized in Table 5-2, the No Project Alternative would not (1) provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods; (2) build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use designations consistent with surrounding area; (3) facilitate the annexation of the project development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona; (4) provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods; (5) dedicate land and contribute fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway; (6) ensure that all community facilities and