Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

3.0 4.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0

9.0 12.0

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

Project Consistency with SB 32/CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The CARB Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies the State’s progress towards the statutory 2030 target, while providing a path towards carbon neutrality and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. Recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the City of Corona CAP Update with implementation of new Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which in turn would ensure that the proposed Project is consistent with the CARB Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project would comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the Project would not be inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
As indicated in the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gases. Impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

features, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of the SHP’s WQMP, would ensure that construction and operational water quality impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.H-23 to 4.H-26) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conditions that existed when the Skyline Heights EIR was certified, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (§ 13000 (“Water Quality”) et seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. In June 2019, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted the most recent update to the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin, which originally was adopted by the RWQCB in 1995. The RWQCB’s 2019 Basin Plan is herein incorporated by reference and is available for public review at the Santa Ana RWQCB office located at 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501-3348. (RWQCB, 2019) The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA. The Project site resides within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Based on the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”; Technical Appendix F1), receiving waters for the property’s drainage and listed on Section 303(d) include Temescal Creek Reach 1, Santa Ana River Reach 3, and the Prado Dam. Temescal Creek is impaired by pH, while the Santa Ana River is impaired by bacteria and viruses (pathogens), copper (wet season) and lead. The Prado Dam is not listed as containing any Section 303(d) impairments. (KWC Engineers, 2025b, Table A.1) A specific provision of the CWA applicable to the Project is CWA Section 402, which authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program also requires operators of construction sites one acre or larger to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit. Provided below is a discussion of the Project’s potential to result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during both construction and long-term operation.

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

activities, and these requirements also would have applied to new development at the time the SHP EIR was certified. The SWPPP is required to specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. As with the project evaluated in the SHP EIR, mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, does not result in substantial erosion or siltation, and does not otherwise substantially degrade water quality during construction activities. Therefore, with mandatory adherence to the future required SWPPP, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

Complete Streets

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology Integration

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding the System/Users Fees

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing the Region

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

Air Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

Workforce Development

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

83. Encourage inclusive workforce development that
promotes upward economic mobility

84. Support entrepreneurial growth with a focus on
underrepresented communities

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
roads within the project boundary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
adopted zoning classifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy LU-9.8 Require that multi-family development
abutting single-family housing units incorporate setbacks, Not Applicable. Policy LU-9.8 relates to the collocation of single family uses with multi-family uses, while no multiPage 3385 of 3613

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.1 through LU-14.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
publicly-accessible trails under the proposed Project.

Policy LU-16.2 Require the dedication of additional open spaces in new residential subdivisions and other applicable development, where necessary, to preserve the natural
topography, plant and animal habitats, and flooding and drainage corridors in accordance with subsequent policies of this plan.

Consistent: The proposed Project accommodates 182.48
acres of open space (i.e., natural open space,
manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks), and the Project’s open space areas encompass the portions of the Project site with substantial natural
topography and the portions of the site with the most
sensitive biological habitat.

Policy LU-16.3 Protect viewsheds by prohibiting the
placement of electrical transmission lines, substations, and other types of overhead or at grade heavy infrastructure into public open space or other sensitive areas.

Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any
electrical transmission lines, substations, and other types of overhead or at grade heavy infrastructure.

Policy LU-16.4 Design improvements constructed in public open spaces to reflect their natural environmental setting in form, materials, and colors and to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Consistent. Improvements proposed within the Project’s
planned open space areas would be limited to the
installation of trailhead signage and restoration on site for temporarily impacted habitats. The Project also has been designed to ensure compatibility between proposed
residential and open space uses, and the Project would be subject to the SHP EIR mitigation measures related to
biological resources (as modified/supplemented herein).

Policy LU-16.5 Require that improvements required to be placed in open space areas (e.g., reservoirs, lighting, and other infrastructure) be designed to minimize the impact on the landscape, avoid obstructing viewsheds, and be
shielded to the extent feasible by landscaping, trees, and other natural forms.

Consistent. Improvements within the Project’s open space areas would be limited to restoration of some temporarily disturbed areas, and the construction of trailheads/signage at the entrance to the existing open space trails on site.

No reservoirs, lighting, or other infrastructure is proposed within the Project’s open space areas, with exception of the Project’s detention basins.

Policy LU-16.6 As a requirement for new development,
ensure the financing, planning, design, and construction of parkland as required by the Quimby Ordinance,
community needs, and consistent with the parks,
recreation, and education element.

Consistent. According to data available from the United States Census Bureau, the City of Corona has an average of approximately 3.28 residents per household (USCB, 2024).

Thus, the proposed Project evaluated herein would
generate a future population of approximately 905
residents (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons).

In order to meet the parkland standard established by
General Plan Policy PR-1.1 of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the Project would require a
minimum of 2.72 acres of parkland (905.28 persons x 3.0 acres/1,000 persons = 2.716 acres). The proposed Project would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland.

Policy LU-16.7 Work with Corona Fire, CAL FIRE and Forest Service and with property owners in affected areas to
reduce and minimize the hazards associated with wildfire in the hillsides and open spaces, consistent with the goals and policies of the safety element.

Consistent. As discussed in further detail herein in
Subsection 2.19, Wildfire, the Project would implement the recommendations of the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (EIR Addendum Technical Appendix K), which would serve to
reduce and minimize the hazards to future residents and

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
structures on site associated with wildfire hazards, and no component of the Project would conflict with the goals and policies contained within the Safety Element.

Opportunity Districts and Sites: Goals LU-17 through LU-21 and Policies LU-17.1 through LU-21.5.

Not Applicable. Goals LU-17 through LU-21 and Policies LU17.1 through LU-21.5 pertain to specific areas of the City of Corona, and the Project site is not located within any of the areas addressed by these goals and policies.

Sphere of Influence: Goal LU-22 and Policies LU 22.1
through LU 22.20.

Not Applicable. Goal LU-22 and Policies LU 22.1 through LU

22.20 pertain to lands within the City of Corona Sphere of Influence, and the Project site is located within the City limits and is not located within the City’s Sphere of
Influence.

Corona Municipal Airport: Goal LU-21 and Policies LU-23.1 through LU-23.8
Not Applicable. Goal LU-21 and Policies LU-23.1 through LU-23.8 pertain to the City of Corona Municipal Airport, and are not applicable to the proposed Project, which is not located within the Airport Influence Area for this
facility.

General Plan Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal H-1: Promote and maintain a balance of housing
types and corresponding affordability levels to provide for the community's demands for housing within all economic segments of the City.

Not Applicable. Policy H-1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the Project accommodates a
diversity of housing types including 93 single-family
detached housing units on minimum 7,200 s.f. lots, three custom single-family lots, 104 eight-cluster single-family detached housing units, and 77 four-cluster single-family detached housing units.

Policy H-1.1 Continue to support public and private sector nonprofit and for-profit organizations in their efforts to construct, acquire, and improve housing to provide access to affordable housing to lower and moderate-income
households.

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

Policy H-1.2 Promote specific plans and zoning map
amendments that provide a variety of housing types and
densities based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of infrastructure, the provision of adequate City services and recognition of environmental constraints.

Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, and the
Project accommodates a diversity of housing types
including 93 single-family detached housing units on
minimum 7,200 s.f. lots, three custom single-family lots, 104 eight-cluster single-family detached housing units, and 77 four-cluster single-family detached housing units. The Project’s design also avoids the site’s environmental
constraints to the maximum feasible extent.

Policy H-1.3 Provide sites for residential development so that scarcity of land does not unduly increase the cost or decrease the availability of housing for all segments of the community.

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

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy H-1.4 Support the development of sustainable
projects that reduce demand for water and energy
resources, reduce commute times and operational costs,
and provide for transit-oriented development.

Not Applicable. Policy H-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy H-1.5 Create or expand zoning designations and
commensurate development standards to encourage
flexibility in permitted land use types that respond to changing market forces and provide opportunities for
higher density residential development, mixed-use
residential/commercial development, and transit oriented residential development in appropriate areas of the City.

Not Applicable. Policy H-1.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Special Needs Housing: Goal H-2 and Policies H-2.1
through H-2.5
Not Applicable. Goal H-2 and Policies H-2.1 through H-2.5 pertain to special needs housing, and is not applicable to the proposed Project which does not include special needs housing beyond the typical single-family residential units proposed as part of the Project.

Goal H-3: Maintain high quality residential development standards to ensure the establishment of livable
neighborhoods with lasting safety and aesthetic value, and to promote the maintenance and preservation of historic neighborhoods.

Not Applicable. Goal H-3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy H-3.1 Recognize the City's inventory of existing historic structures and seek programs to enhance and
preserve those neighborhoods.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy H-3.2 Encourage the revitalization of the existing dwelling units in the Circle area through rehabilitation programs.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy H-3.3 Provide public services and improvements that enhance and create neighborhood stability.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy H-3.4 Continue to establish and enforce property maintenance regulations that promote the sound
maintenance of property and enhance the livability and
appearance of residential areas.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy H-3.5 Maintain design review for new residential developments to ensure the construction of livable and
aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the City has reviewed the
proposed Project’s design to ensure that the Project
promotes the establishment of livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.

Policy H-3.6 Prioritize water and sewer services and
upgrades in areas of the city that have been identified as urban infill sites for the planning of affordable housing.

Not Applicable. Policy H-3.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Fair Housing: Goal H-4 and Policies H-4.1 and H-4.2 Not Applicable. Goal H-4 and Policies H-4.1 and H-4.2 provide direction to City staff and decision makers and are

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
unrelated to the proposed Project.

General Plan Community Design Element Goals and Policies Goal CD-1: Public street landscapes that unify the City of Corona and contribute to the unique identity of its
neighborhoods, districts, and public places.

Consistent. All future development on site would be
subject to compliance with the development standards
and design guidelines of the proposed SHSP, including
requirements for street landscapes, which implement the requirements of this policy.

Policy CD-1.1 Require the planting and maintenance of
street trees as part of development applications with
consideration for the following principles:
• Physical constraints of the public street right-of-way, maintenance needs, and safety.
• Importance of shade, beauty, and variety of species
that encourage pedestrian activity.
• Reflects the context of the surrounding residential,
commercial, office, or industrial land uses.

Consistent. Street trees would be planted as part of the Project along all of the Project’s proposed on-site
roadways. Additionally, all landscaping on site would occur in conformance with the design guidelines presented in
the proposed SHSP, which implement these principles.

Policy CD-1.2 Maintain a street tree maintenance and
enhancement program that visually distinguishes
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Areas requiring specific treatment include, but are not limited to,
Downtown along Grand Boulevard, Sixth Street, North
Main Street Corridor, and other key districts.

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

Policy CD-1.3 Maintain a street landscape master plan that identifies species to be used along public streets
throughout the City. A palette of trees and landscaping should be designed to allow for:
• Differentiation within key districts in the City, including Downtown, Sixth Street, North Main, and other
locations.
• Differentiation at the street’s key nodal intersections, entryways, and public places.
• Sustainable landscaping practices including but not
limited to drought-resistant species.

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

Policy CD-1.4 Protect landscaping and mature trees that are symbolic of the City’s agricultural heritage, history, or identity for a district, neighborhood, or street corridor.

Not Applicable. Policy CD-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy CD-1.5 Require developers of residential
subdivisions to submit a landscape plan that defines a
program of trees and plantings that uniquely identify
streets, principal entries and intersections, and activity centers such as parks and community facilities.

Consistent. The Project’s application materials include a landscape plan that defines a program of trees and
plantings that uniquely identify streets, principal entries and intersections, and the Project’s proposed public and private parks.

Policy CD-1.6 Seek to expand the citywide and districtspecific district financing mechanisms to fully fund the cost of adding to, maintaining, and improving the City’s public landscaping and street trees.

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

City Entries and Monumentation: Goal CD-2 and Policies Not Applicable. Goal CD-2 and Policies CD-2.1 through CDPage 3390 of 3613

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
CD-2.1 through CD-2.3 2.3 relate to City entries and monumentation at major city entrances and corridors, and are unrelated to the
proposed Project.

Public Signage: Goal CD-3 and Policies CD-3.1 through CD3.5 Not Applicable. Goal CD-3 and Policies CD-3.1 through CD3.5 relate to public signage and wayfinding, while the Project would include appropriate signage in accordance with this goal and these policies.

Goal CD-4: A network of trails and greenways that
interconnect Corona’s parklands, open spaces, and
drainages that provide hiking and bicycle opportunities and access into surrounding open spaces and natural areas.

Consistent. The Project site includes several existing
improved and unimproved trails that traverse portions of the site that are proposed to be retained within the
Project’s proposed natural open space areas on site. This includes the portion of the Skyline Ridge Trail that occurs on site, which would be retained within the on-site open space areas and would be provided with a non-vehicular
connection to Foothill Parkway.

Policy CD-4.1 Develop a plan and implement
improvements that visually and physically interconnect the City’s parklands and link these and residential
neighborhoods with the Cleveland National Forest, and
other open spaces. This may be accomplished by the
installation of a continuous corridor of trees, plantings, informational signage, trails, and/or other defining
elements along streets that connect the parks and open
spaces or new corridors, where feasible.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed open space areas
would be physically interconnected with open space areas within the adjacent Cleveland National Forest (CNF), and the Project would install trailhead directional and safety signs. In addition, the Project would be subject to
compliance with SHP EIR PDF LU-1, which requires the
posting of signage to delineate the boundary between the Project’s open space areas and the CNF in order to
preclude unauthorized access to open space areas within the CNF.

Policy CD-4.2 New development adjoining open spaces,
washes or have the ability to provide pedestrian
connections to off-site trails or pathways should be
designed to ensure landscape transitions and compatibility with these resources. Such improvements should be
designed to provide adequate flood protection for
adjoining properties.

Consistent. The Project’s landscape plan has been
designed to provide a transition between proposed
development areas and on-site open space areas, and the Project would accommodate public trailheads to the
existing natural trails that would be preserved within the on-site open space areas.

Districts, Nodes, and Corridors: Goal CD-5 and Policies CD5.1 through CD-5.11 Not Applicable: Goal CD-5 and Policies CD-5.1 through CD5.11 relate to downtown Corona, North Main Street, and key corridors and activity nodes, while the Project site is not located within the portions of the City affected by this goal and these policies
c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The SHP EIR found that the SHP site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the MSHCP, and determined that the payment of a development mitigation fee is intended to provide full mitigation. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.I-25)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously discussed under the analysis of Threshold f) in Subsection 2.4, Biological Resources, with implementation of the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures related to biological resources (as modified/supplemented by this Addendum No. 1 to the SHP EIR), the proposed Project would be fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the only applicable habitat conservation plan or natural conservation plan to the proposed Project. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, with mitigation the Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

Mitigation Measures
The following Project Design Feature (PDF) from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to preclude potential impacts to National Forest Service (NFS) lands within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF).

PDF LU-1: The project applicant will survey and post the location of the private property boundary line where it abuts NFS lands within the project area.

2.12 Mineral Resources
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region or the residents of the State?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State?
b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared for the SHP EIR determined that construction and operation of the SHP would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources (Corona, 2014).

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to mapping information available from the California Geological Survey (CGS), and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project site and surrounding areas are classified within Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) 3, which includes “[a]reas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data” (CGS, 2014). In addition, the City of Corona General Plan does not identify the Project site as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site, and the Project site currently is not subject to any adopted Specific Plans. In addition, no portion of the Project site would be designated for mineral resources production by the proposed SHSP. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State, and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impact would occur. The proposed Project also would develop the same area the SHP EIR assumed would be developed by the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

2.13 Noise
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
g. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant air quality impacts, a Project-specific technical study was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (herein, “UC”). This report is titled, “Skyline Heights (TTM No. 36544R1), SP00-001 Amendment No. 1, Noise and Vibration Analysis” (herein, “NVA”), is dated December 11, 2023, and is included herein as Technical Appendix I (UC, 2023). a) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels and expose people to temporary, intermittent, and moderate to high-level noise levels. However, as the SHP would comply with the City of Corona’s Noise Ordinance, the SHP EIR found that construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, the SHP EIR imposed mitigation to minimize the potential for construction noise impacts at the nearby noise sensitive residential land uses. The SHP EIR also found that the SHP’s proposed residential uses would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the SHP vicinity above levels existing without the SHP. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that long-term operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.J-14 to 4.J-20)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project evaluated is substantially the same as the project evaluated by the SHP EIR, except that the currently-proposed Project includes 16 fewer residential dwelling units, and the proposed Project would increase open space (i.e., natural open space, manufactured slopes, drainage basins, and public/private parks) from 149.55 acres under the Approved Project to 182.48 acres under the proposed Project, which represents an increase of 22.0% compared to the Approved Project. Thus, it can be concluded that the Project’s construction- and operational-related noise impacts would be less than what was evaluated and disclosed for the Project site by the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, provided

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

below is an assessment of the proposed Project’s potential to result in substantial temporary or permanent noise increases during construction, including noise associated with construction-related blasting activities, followed by a discussion and analysis of the Project’s potential noise impacts under long-term operations associated with site operations and off-site Project-related traffic.

Existing Noise Measurement Results
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period (refer to Section 5 of the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I, for a description of the methodology used to collect existing noise measurements). The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Figure 10, Noise Measurement Locations, provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. The noise measurements presented below in Table 33, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 33 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.

Appendix 5.2 to the Project’s NVA provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels. (UC, 2023, p. 28)

Sensitive Receptor Locations
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Figure 11, Sensitive Receiver Locations, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. (UC, 2023, p. 47) • Receptor R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 2480 Sierra Bella Drive, approximately 2,035 feet northwest of the Project site. R1 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 1791 Chisholm Trail Circle, approximately 95 feet northeast of the Project site. R2 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 1490 Clearview Circle, approximately 53 feet east of the Project site. R3 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
• Receptor R4: Location R4 represents the mobile homes at 1449 Gareth Circle, approximately 324 feet east of the Project site. R4 is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24- hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Figure 10 Noise Measurement Locations
(UC, 2023, Exhibit 5-A)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Figure 11 Sensitive Receiver Locations
(UC, 2023, Exhibit 9-A)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 33 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 CNEL
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the site near the residence at 2480 Sierra Bella Drive 65.9 60.5 68.8
L2 Located North of the site near the residence at 1791 Chisholm Trail Circle 71.4 69.9 76.7
L3 Located East of the site near the residence at 1490
Clearview Circle 71.6 65.6 74.1
L4 Located East of the site near the residence at 1449
Gareth Circle 55.1 51.9 59.3
L5 Located West of the site near the residence at 2400
Mabey Canyon Road 43.4 42.6 49.3
1 See Figure 10 for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2 to the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I).
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (UC, 2023, Table 5-1)
• Receptor R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise-sensitive residence at 2400 Mabey Cyn Road, approximately 174 feet west of the Project site. R5 is placed at the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L5, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Significance Criteria
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
As discussed in further detail in Section 4 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I), noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines and the significance of Project-related noise is based on the noise level increases at the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. For purposes of analysis of impacts to noisesensitive receivers, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the existing noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. (UC, 2023, pp. 23-24) Non-Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Table N-1, Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, of the City of Corona General Plan Noise Element was used to establish the satisfactory noise levels of significance for non-noise-sensitive land uses in the Project study area. To determine if Project-related traffic noise level increases are significant at off-site non-noise-sensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA criteria is used. When the without Project noise levels are greater than the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

clearly compatible 70 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria at non-noise sensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact since the noise level criteria is already exceeded. (UC, 2023, p. 24)
Significance Criteria Summary
As discussed in further detail in Section 4 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I), the Project’s noise impacts would be considered significant if the Project were to exceed any of the significance thresholds identified in Table 34, Significance Criteria Summary.

Table 34 Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic
NoiseSensitive1
if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non-NoiseSensitive2 if ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase On-Site
Traffic Residential3 Exterior Noise Level 65 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level 45 dBA CNEL
Operational
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards4 See Table 3-1
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Non-NoiseSensitive2 If ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Construction NoiseSensitive
Prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays.5 Noise Level Threshold6 80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Airblast Threshold5 129 dBA Lmax n/a
Vibration Level Threshold7 0.05 in/sec RMS 1 FICON, 1992. 2 City of Corona General Plan Noise Element (Table N-1) 3 City of Corona General Plan Noise Element Table N-2, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. 4 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040 Noise[C][2] (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I). 5 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.040[D][2] Noise (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA). 6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. 7 City of Corona Municipal Code, Section 17.84.050 Vibration (Appendix 3.1 to the Project’s NVA). "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; "RMS" = root-mean-square (UC, 2023, Table 4-1)
Construction-Related Noise Impacts
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that, when combined, can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, blasting, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The construction noise analysis included in the Project’s NVA was

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

prepared using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program and reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction, as more fully described in Subsections 11.1 through 11.3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described above and depicted on Figure 11. (UC, 2023, pp. 57-60)
Typical Construction Noise Analysis
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess a reasonable worst-case construction scenario and account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the Project construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference level as a moving point within the construction area (Project site boundary). As shown in Table 35, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 32.5 to 57.5 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 42.6 to 57.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Appendix 11.1 to the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. (UC, 2023, p. 60)
Table 35 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 42.6 40.8 38.9 38.5 32.5 42.6
R2 56.3 54.5 52.6 52.2 46.2 56.3
R3 57.5 55.7 53.8 53.4 47.4 57.5
R4 51.7 49.9 48.0 47.6 41.6 51.7
R5 55.1 53.3 51.4 51.0 45.0 55.1 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 11-2)

To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at the nearest noisesensitive receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table 36, Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise would be less than significant at all receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 60)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 36 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 ThresholdExceeded?4
R1 42.6 80 No
R2 56.3 80 No
R3 57.5 80 No
R4 51.7 80 No
R5 55.1 80 No 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations as shown on Table 35. 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment noise level threshold as shown on Table 34. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (UC, 2023, Table 11-3)
Construction-Related Blasting Noise Analysis
Portions of the Project site are underlain by non-rippable bedrock materials that are not conducive to standard grading techniques. In these areas, it is anticipated that blasting would be required during grading in order to break up the existing bedrock. Figure 12, Construction Blasting Locations in Relation to Sensitive Receptors, depicts the portions of the Project site anticipated to require blasting during grading in relation to the sensitive receptor locations previously depicted on Figure 11.

A blasting contractor would be required to complete all blasting-related activities in compliance with applicable regulations of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OHSA), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As required by law, a licensed blasting contractor would be responsible for performing and supervising all blasting activities, including the following: (UC, 2023, p. 62) • Drill pattern design;
• Pre-blast inspection;
• Loading of explosives;
• Pre-blast notifications and warning signaling;
• Blasting safety procedures;
• Blasting site security;
• Post-blast inspections and re-entry procedures; and
• Blast log and history.
• Pattern blasting involves drilling holes in a pre-designed pattern. The depth and spacing of holes are controlled to provide the maximum fracture with the minimum amount of ground shaking. Blasting patterns typically consist of drill holes between two and five inches in diameter. The depth of the drill holes would be determined by the blasting contractor and is specific to each application. Blasting patterns

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Figure 12 Construction Blasting Locations in Relation to Sensitive Receptors (UC, 2023, Exhibit 11-B)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

on construction sites typically range from three feet by three feet to 12 feet by 12 feet. The Blasting Engineer would control blasting-induced vibration and noise. General control measures include: (UC, 2023, p. 64)
• Stemming shall be of uniform size in order to ensure consistency between individual shots; • The weight of explosives used per delay shall be determined by adherence to the Scaled Distance Equation;
• Independent delays shall be used for each blast hole to control vibration; and • Blasting shall not take place when wind velocity equals or exceeds 15 miles per hour. A licensed blasting contractor will determine wind speed through the use of a recording anemometer located a minimum of ten feet above ground level.

In addition, ground vibrations and air overpressure shall be monitored during each blast for compliance with the limits by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Following each blast, seismographs shall be checked to ensure that the blasting has not exceeded relevant standards. The relevant standards are as follows: (UC, 2023, p. 64) • Pursuant to 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Ch. VII, § 816.67(b)(1)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8485, airblasts shall not exceed 133 dB at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area. • Pursuant to 30 CFR Ch. VII, § 816.67(d)(2)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8508, the maximum ground vibration shall not exceed the limits in said section at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area.

To evaluate the potential noise levels from blasting activities during Project construction, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) reference noise level of 94.1 dBA Lmax is used at a reference distance of 50 feet. Each blast represents a point source of noise that attenuates at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. The closest residential homes to the Project construction area are represented by receiver location R2 located approximately 944 feet northeast of the nearest blasting area. With the distance attenuation from the closest blasting activities, the unmitigated noise levels at nearby receiver locations are expected to range from 57.6 to 68.6 dBA Lmax based on the blasting noise levels shown in Table 37, Blasting-Related Construction Noise Levels. However, since the type of blasting techniques planned within the Project site was unknown at the time the Project’s NVA was prepared, the noise levels presented at the nearby sensitive receiver locations represent the worst-case conditions based on the RCNM reference noise level. (UC, 2023, p. 64)
The City of Corona General Plan and Municipal Code do not identify specific construction noise level limits for blasting activities. Therefore, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) and CFR lowest maximum Airblast Limit (30 CFR 816.67[b]) of 129 dBA Lmax at nearby sensitive uses is used. Based on the reference blasting noise level, the closest residential receiver would experience noise levels of 68.6 dBA Lmax over the course of the blast, which likely would occur for only a few seconds. While some blasting noise may be noticeable by nearby residents, the single-event, temporary noise levels generated by the blast will not exceed the OSMRE and the CFR standards for airblasts. Accordingly, Project impacts due to blasting-related noise during grading activities would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, p. 65)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 37 Blasting-Related Construction Noise Levels
Location1
Distance to
Blasting Activity
(Feet)2
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 3,312' 57.7 129 No
R2 944' 68.6 129 No
R3 1,952' 62.3 129 No
R4 3,330' 57.6 129 No
R5 990' 68.2 129 No 1 Blasting construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Figure 12. 2 Based on FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model reference noise level of 94.1 dBA Lmax. (UC, 2023, Table 11-6)
Operational-Related Noise Impacts
On-Site Operational Noise Impacts
Project Operational Noise Levels
The proposed Project is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with residential land uses in the Project study area. However, to present a conservative approach, on-site Project-only operational noise sources are analyzed and are expected to include air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity. (UC, 2023, p. 49)
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project, and are shown on Table 38, Reference Noise Level Measurements. Refer to Subsections 10.2 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a discussion of the methodology used to collect and calculate the reference noise levels. It is important to note that the projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity all operating continuously. These sources of noise activity likely would vary throughout the day. (UC, 2023, p. 49) Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, lift station activity, outdoor activity, and skate park activity, UC calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Refer to Subsection 10.3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a description of the noise modeling methodology used to calculate the Project’s operational-related noise levels. Table 39, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. As shown, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 26.0 to 36.8 dBA Leq. Table 40, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. As shown, the nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from

23.4 to 33.9 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity (as shown in Table 38). (UC, 2023, p. 53)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 38 Reference Noise Level Measurements
Noise Source
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour2
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA)3
Day Night
Air Conditioning Units1 5' 45 30 45.4 77.0
Parking Lot Vehicle
Movements2 5' 60 60 31.4 63.0
Lift Station Activity3 5' 60 60 70.0 101.6
Outdoor Gatherings Activity3 5' 60 0 59.9 91.5
Skate Park Activity3 5' 60 0 63.3 94.9
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:0 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 Rheem RP14 Series, see Appendix 10.1 to the Project’s NVA, included as Technical Appendix I. 2 Parking Lot Movements are calculated based on the number of events by time of day (See Table 10-2 of the Project’s NVA). 3 As collected/measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 4 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. 5 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources. (UC, 2023, Table 10-1)
Table 39 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Air Conditioning Units 20.6 33.4 26.2 26.9 31.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 0.0 5.5 11.4 14.4 9.4
Lift Station Activity 22.8 32.1 34.3 26.4 30.3
Outdoor Gatherings Activity 19.7 30.1 32.0 33.0 32.6
Skate Park Activity 0.0 19.9 25.5 25.7 23.9
Total (All Noise Sources) 26.0 36.8 36.7 34.7 36.3 1 See Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-3)
Table 40 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Air Conditioning Units 17.9 30.7 23.4 24.1 28.5
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 0.0 4.5 10.4 13.4 8.4
Lift Station Activity 21.9 31.1 33.4 25.5 29.4
Outdoor Gatherings Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skate Park Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 23.4 33.9 33.8 28.0 32.0 1 See Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.2 to the Project’s NVA.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-4)
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Corona exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 41, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

levels associated with proposed Project would satisfy the City of Corona 55 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts would be less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 54) Table 41 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 26.0 23.4 55 50 No No
R2 36.8 33.9 55 50 No No
R3 36.7 33.8 55 50 No No
R4 34.7 28.0 55 50 No No
R5 36.3 32.0 55 50 No No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 39 and Table 40. 3 Exterior noise level standards for source (residential) land use, as shown on Table 4-1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. (UC, 2023, Table 10-5)
Project Operational Noise Level Increases
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources using the methodology described in Subsection 10.6 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 42, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, and Table 43, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, the Project would generate operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.8 dBA at the nearest receiver locations. Projectrelated operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 34. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase would be than significant at all receiver locations. (UC, 2023, p. 55) Off-Site Traffic-Related Noise Impacts
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Project’s Traffic Analysis (“TA”; Technical Appendix J). Noise contour boundaries represent equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Refer to Subsection 7.1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) for a discussion of the noise contours that were utilized for estimating Project traffic-related under Existing (2023) and Opening Year Cumulative (2028) conditions. (UC, 2023, pp. 35-37)
Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Project’s TA (Technical Appendix J). This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and would not occur, since the Project will not be fully

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 42 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 26.0 L1 65.9 65.9 0.0 1.5 No
R2 36.8 L2 71.4 71.4 0.0 1.5 No
R3 36.7 L3 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No
R4 34.7 L4 55.1 55.1 0.0 5.0 No
R5 36.3 L5 43.4 44.2 0.8 5.0 No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 39. 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 10. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 33. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 34.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-6)
Table 43 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 23.4 L1 60.5 60.5 0.0 3.0 No
R2 33.9 L2 69.9 69.9 0.0 1.5 No
R3 33.8 L3 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.5 No
R4 28.0 L4 51.9 51.9 0.0 5.0 No
R5 32.0 L5 42.6 43.0 0.4 5.0 No 1 See Figure 11 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 40 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 11. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 33. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 34.
(UC, 2023, Table 10-7)
developed and occupied under Existing (2023) conditions. Table 7-1 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 69.4 to 71.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 of the Project’s NVA shows the Existing with Project conditions would range from 69.6 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. Table 44, Existing with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts would range from 0.2 to 0.4 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for offsite traffic noise presented in Table 34, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less-than-significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic. (UC, 2023, p. 37) Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Level Increases
An analysis of opening year traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Skyline Heights (TTM No. 36544R1) Traffic Analysis. Table 7-3 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I) shows the Opening Yer without

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 44 Existing with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Green River Rd. w/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.1 70.4 0.3 1.5 No 2 Green River Rd. e/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.3 70.6 0.3 1.5 No 3 Green River Rd. e/o Montana Ranch Rd. Residential 70.2 70.5 0.3 1.5 No 4 Green River Rd. e/o Sierra Bella Dr./
Tanglewood Dr. Residential 71.0 71.3 0.3 1.5 No
5 Green River Rd. e/o Paseo Grande Residential 70.4 70.8 0.4 1.5 No 6 Foothill Pkwy. e/o R Street Residential 70.4 70.7 0.3 1.5 No 7 Foothill Pkwy. e/o B St./Border Ave. Residential 70.4 70.6 0.2 1.5 No 8 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Chase Dr. Residential 70.2 70.4 0.2 1.5 No 9 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Trudy Wy. Residential 70.4 70.6 0.2 1.5 No 10 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Lincoln Ave. Residential 69.4 69.6 0.2 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise-sensitive uses are limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 34)? (UC, 2023, Table 7-5)
Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 69.9 to 71.7 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 of the Project’s NVA shows the Opening Year with Project conditions would range from 70.9 to 71.3 dBA CNEL. Table 45, Opening Year with Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts would range from 0.1 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 34, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic. (UC, 2023, pp. 37-38) Table 45 Opening Year with Project Traffic Noise Increases ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level
Increase Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Green River Rd. w/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 70.8 71.0 0.2 1.5 No 2 Green River Rd. e/o Serfas Club Dr. Residential 71.0 71.2 0.2 1.5 No 3 Green River Rd. e/o Montana Ranch Rd. Residential 70.9 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 4 Green River Rd. e/o Sierra Bella
Dr./Tanglewood Dr. Residential 71.7 72.0 0.2 1.5 No
5 Green River Rd. e/o Paseo Grande Residential 71.0 71.3 0.3 1.5 No 6 Foothill Pkwy. e/o R Street Residential 71.0 71.2 0.2 1.5 No 7 Foothill Pkwy. e/o B St./Border Ave. Residential 71.0 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 8 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Chase Dr. Residential 70.7 70.9 0.2 1.5 No 9 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Trudy Wy. Residential 70.9 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 10 Foothill Pkwy. e/o Lincoln Ave. Residential 69.9 70.1 0.1 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise-sensitive uses are limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 34)? (UC, 2023, Table 7-6)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Conclusion
As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the Project’s near-term construction activities, including blasting activities, and long-term operational and traffic-related impacts, would be less than significant based on the significance criteria presented in Table 34. Accordingly, the proposed Project: (1) would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (2) would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project; and (3) would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop a smaller footprint, with fewer residential units than the Approved Project, meaning that all impacts are generally reduced compared to what was analyzed in the SHP EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.
b) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p.

4.J-21)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project has the potential to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during both construction and long-term operations. Each is discussed below.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Typical Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 46, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA, which is described in Subsection 11.6 of the Project’s NVA (Technical Appendix I). (UC, 2023, p. 61)
Table 47, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, presents the expected typical construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 53 feet to 2,035 feet from typical Project construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to range from less than 0.01 to 0.03 PPV (in/sec) at the nearest receiver locations. The Project construction would not generate vibration levels exceeding the City of Corona maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.20 PPV (in/sec)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 46 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. (UC, 2023, Table 11-4)
Table 47 Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver
Location1 Land Use
Distance to
Property
Line
(In Feet)
Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2
Threshold
(PPV
in/sec)
Potential
Significant
Impact?4
Small
Bulldozer
Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Peak
Vibration
R1 Residential 2,035' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No
R2 Residential 95' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 No
R3 Residential 53' 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.20 No
R4 Residential 324' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No
R5 Residential 174' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 No 1 Typical construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 11-4. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2020.
4 Does the Peak Vibration exceed the City of Corona maximum acceptable vibration standard of 0.05 in/sec? (UC, 2023, Table 11-5)
(0.05 RMS in/sec). Further, impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating proximate to the Project site perimeter. Moreover, construction at the Project site would be restricted to daytime hours consistent with CMC requirements, thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours. On this basis the potential for the Project to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration during typical construction activities would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, pp. 61-62)
Blasting-Related Construction Vibration Impacts
Blasting operations can have unacceptable noise and vibration impacts if not conducted correctly. Excessive levels of structural vibration due to ground vibration from blasting can cause substantial damage to structures. A blasting contractor would be required to complete all blasting-related activities in compliance with applicable regulations of the City of Corona, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which have many requirements for the safe handling, use, and storage of explosives and recommend various measures and controls, including, but not limited to monitoring and reporting of each blast to verify no damage has occurred at nearby structures, notifications to surrounding neighbors, limitations on the amounts and times blast may occur. Compliance with the applicable blasting-related regulations would ensure that Project blasting activities do not generate vibration levels exceeding the identified threshold of significance of 0.05 inches per

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

second (in/sec) Route Mean Squared (RMS) previously shown in Table 34. However, and although unlikely because compliance with applicable regulations is mandatory, in the event that the Project were to fail to comply with the applicable regulations, the detonation of up to 140 pounds of explosives in a single blast could have the potential exceed the City of Corona vibration threshold at distances up to 900 feet from the blast. Therefore, without vibration controls and measures, as required by applicable blasting-related regulations, blasting could exceed thresholds at the areas near existing residential homes surrounding the Project site, as shown on Figure 12.

Although blasting-related vibration impacts would be less than significant with mandatory compliance with applicable blasting-related regulations, new Mitigation Measure NS-9 has been identified as part of this EIR Addendum in order to ensure Project compliance with the applicable blasting-related regulations during site blasting activities. With mandatory compliance with applicable blasting-related regulations, as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, vibration levels from Project-related blasting activities at sensitive receivers would be less than significant. (UC, 2023, p. 65)
Operational-Related Vibration Impacts
Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. The Project’s only potential to result in operational-related vibration impacts would be due to Projectrelated traffic traveling along local area roadways. Caltrans has issued a publication entitled, “Transportation Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” dated April 2020 (Caltrans, 2020). As noted by Caltrans:
“Because vehicles traveling on highway are supported on flexible suspension systems and pneumatic tires, these vehicles are not an efficient source of ground vibration. They can, however, impart vibration into the ground when they roll over pavement that is not smooth. Continuous traffic traveling on a smooth highway creates a fairly continuous but relatively low level of vibration. Where discontinuities exist in the pavement, heavy truck passages can be the primary source of localized, intermittent vibration peaks. These peaks typically last no more than a few seconds and often for only a fraction of a second. Because vibration drops off rapidly with distance, there is rarely a cumulative increase in ground vibration from the presence of multiple trucks.” (Caltrans, 2020, p. 10)
All traffic generated by the Project would travel along City, County, or Caltrans facilities that are regularly maintained to prevent discontinuous pavement (e.g., potholes). As such, and based on guidance from Caltrans, the Project’s operational traffic-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With mandatory compliance with appliable blasting-related regulations, as would be required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during either construction or long-term operation, and as such Project vibration-related impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels from airport-related noise.

The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.J-21) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project site is situated approximately 3.0 miles south of the nearest runways at the Corona Municipal Airport, which is the closest airport to the Project site . According to Map CO-3 of the Riverside County ALUC Compatibility Plan for the Corona Municipal Airport, the 55 dBA CNEL contour for the Corona Municipal Airport does not extend south of Railroad Street and the nearest lands located within the 55 dBA CNEL contour occur approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, it can be concluded that future Project residents would not be exposed to airport-related noise levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL. (Google Earth, 2024; Riverside County ALUC, 1993, Map CO-3) According to Table N-1, Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, of the City of Corona General Plan Noise Element, residential and recreational uses such proposed as part of the Project are considered “Clearly Compatible” with noise levels below 55 dBA CNEL (Corona, 2020, Table N-1). There are no other public or private airport facilities within the Project area capable of exposing future Project residents to airport-noise levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve any airport-related components, and thus would have no potential to result in an increase in airport-related noise in the local area.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with public or private airports, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. f) Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels from airport-related noise.

The SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.J-21) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017.

However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 48, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Noise, provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the noise-related goals and policies from the 2020 General Plan, which are included in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. As indicated in Table 48, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to noise. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 48 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Noise Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal N-1: Protect residents, visitors, and noise-sensitive land uses from the adverse human health and
environmental impacts created by excessive noise levels from transportation sources by requiring proactive
mitigation.

Consistent. As demonstrated by the analysis presented
herein, and with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures and new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Project
impacts due to construction- and operational-related noise would be less than significant, in conformance with this policy.

Policy N-1.1: Reduce noise impacts from transportation
noise sources through the design and daily operation of arterial road improvements, enforcement of state motor
vehicle noise standards, and other measures consistent
with funding capabilities.
• Require site design features and structural building
enhancements in the development of residential and
other “noise sensitive” land uses that are to be located adjacent to major roads or railroads.
• Encourage enforcement of state motor vehicle noise
standards through coordination with the California
Highway Patrol and the Corona Police Department.
• Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance, Circulation
Element, and Land Use Element of the General Plan
fully integrate the policies adopted as part of the
Noise Element.

Consistent. The analysis presented herein under the
discussion of Thresholds a), c), and d), above,
demonstrates that the Project’s traffic-related noise
increases would be less than significant under all study scenarios and along all study area roadways. Additionally, the Project’s NVA demonstrates that future residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards with standard building construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors with minimum
Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings of 27.

Policy N-1.2: Minimize the rise of vehicle noise from
roadways through route location, sensitive roadway
design, regulation of traffic volumes and speeds, and
working with Caltrans in highway improvements.

Consistent. Although this policy primarily provides
direction to City staff and decision makers regarding
vehicle noise management, the analysis presented herein under the discussion of Thresholds a), c), and d), above, demonstrates that the Project’s traffic-related noise
increases would be less than significant under all study scenarios and along all study area roadways.

Policy N-1.3: Encourage Caltrans to install and maintain mitigation (e.g., noise walls) and/or landscaping elements along highways that are adjacent to existing residential subdivisions or other noise-sensitive areas in order to reduce adverse noise impacts.

Not Applicable. Policy N-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding coordination with Caltrans with respect to vehicular noise along Caltrans routes, and is not applicable to the proposed Project, which would not affect any transportation facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Policy N-1.4: Require municipal vehicles and noisegenerating mechanical equipment purchased or used by the City to comply with noise performance standards
consistent with the latest available noise reduction
technology to the extent practicable and cost-effective.

Not Applicable. Policy N-1.4 relates to noise from Cityowned municipal vehicles, and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy N-1.5: Require new nonresidential development that attracts noise-generating vehicles (e.g., high volumes of traffic, trucking) to design and configure onsite ingress and egress points to divert traffic away from “noise sensitive” Not Applicable. Policy N-1.5 relates to nonresidential
development that attracts noise-generating vehicles, while the Project consists of a proposed residential
development. Thus, this policy is not applicable to the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
land uses, to the greatest extent practicable. proposed Project.

Goal N-2: Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of
excessive ambient noise exposure, including vibration on residents, employees, visitors, and “noise sensitive” land uses.

Consistent. The analysis of Threshold d), above,
demonstrates that with implementation of the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR, and with mandatory
regulatory compliance with applicable blasting regulations as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Projectrelated construction and long-term operational vibration impacts would be less than significant at all nearby
sensitive receptor locations.

Policy N-2.1 Consider noise and vibration levels in land use planning decisions to prevent future noise and vibration and land use incompatibilities. Considerations may include, but not necessarily be limited to, standards that specify acceptable noise limits for various land uses, noise
reduction features, acoustical design in new construction, and enforcement of the California Standards Building Code provisions for indoor and outdoor noise levels.

Not Applicable. Policy N-2.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to establish of noise thresholds of significance and to implement noise mitigation where
appropriate. Notwithstanding, as demonstrated by the
analysis herein, with mandatory compliance with the SHP EIR mitigation measures and with mandatory regulatory
compliance with applicable blasting regulations as required by new Mitigation Measure NS-9, Project-related
construction and long-term operational noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Policy N-2.2 Require that in areas where existing or future ambient noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, all development of new housing, health care
facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other “noise sensitive” uses shall include site design, building enhancements, buffering, and/or mitigation to reduce
noise exposure to within acceptable limits.

Consistent. The Project’s NVA demonstrates that future
residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards with standard building
construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. Thus, future Project
residences would not be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.

Policy N-2.3 Require new industrial and new commercial
land uses or the major expansion of such uses to
demonstrate that ambient noise levels will not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL on areas containing “noise sensitive” land uses as depicted in Table N-1, N-2, and N-3.

Not Applicable. Policy N-2.3 relates to new industrial and commercial land uses, and the Project does not include
any proposed industrial or commercial land uses.

Policy N-2.4 Require development in all areas where the existing or future ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction to reduce interior noise levels to the 45 dBA CNEL level as depicted on Table N-1, N-2, and N-3.

Consistent. A Project-specific technical study (NVA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix I. The Project’s NVA demonstrates that future
residences on site would meet the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA
CNEL with standard building construction that includes
windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27.

Policy N-2.5 Encourage existing “noise sensitive uses,” including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses, in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL to incorporate fences, walls, landscaping, and/or other noise buffers and barriers,
where appropriate and feasible.

Not Applicable. Policy N-2.5 relates to “existing” noisesensitive uses, and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Regardless, as noted above, the Project’s NVA
demonstrates that future residences on site would meet
the City of Corona exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL with standard building
construction that includes windows and sliding glass doors