Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
with minimum STC ratings of 27.

Policy N-2.6 Require development that generates increased traffic and substantial increases in ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide
appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
acceptable limits of the City Noise Ordinance.

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

Policy N-2.7 Require construction activities that occur in close proximity to existing “noise sensitive” uses, including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses, to limit the hours and days of operation in
accordance with the City Noise Ordinance.

Consistent. The Project includes proposed noise-sensitive land uses, and the residential and recreational uses
proposed as part of the Project would not include any
operational characteristics that would have the potential to result in on- or off-site noise impacts during nighttime hours.

Goal N-3 and Policies N-3.1 through N-3.6 Not Applicable. Goal N-3 and Policies N-3.1 through N-3.6 relate to the encroachment and spillover of unacceptable noise levels from mixed use, commercial, and industrial uses, and the Project does not propose any mixed use,
commercial, or industrial uses.

Goal N-4 and Policies N-4.1 through N-4.5 Not Applicable. Goal N-4 and Policies N-4.1 through N-4.5 relate to noise impacts from railroad transit, airport
operations, and flight patterns, and are not applicable to the proposed Project, which does not include any railroador airport-related components.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to noise to below a level of significance. Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format, and have been made to reflect the results of the Project’s NVA. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measures reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.

NS-1 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and Federal holidays.

NS-2 Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses.

NS-3 Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

NS-4 The use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall be minimized (i.e., use of drills, jackhammers).

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

NS-6 Barriers such as, but not limited to, plywood structures of flexible sound control curtains shall be erected between the proposed project and the adjacent existing residences to the northeast and west, to minimize the amount of noise to the maximum extent feasible during construction.

NS-7 All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Public Works Department, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.

NS-8 Adjacent land uses within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified about the estimated duration and hours of construction activities at least 30 days before the start of construction.

NS-9 Prior to approval of any grading permits that require blasting activities and a blasting permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit for City review and approval of a Blasting Noise and Vibration Monitoring and Abatement Plan (“Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan”). At a minimum, the required Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall include the following:
 Specified blasting hours, restricting blasting only to Monday through Friday and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
 Conceptual blast designs. Conceptual blast designs shall be based on “scaled distance” criteria (i.e., defined as the distance in feet between a blast drill hole and the structure of concern, divided by the square root of the explosives loading per delay period in pounds-units in feet per pound1/2). The scaled distance chosen for the initial design should be supported by statistical analysis indicating the resulting ground vibration will be less than the criteria set for the Project. The scaled distance used for production blasts may be modified based on the results of the test blast(s) but should be conservative enough to produce vibration and airblast levels within the project specifications. It should be noted that the conceptual blast designs are general and will need to be modified during the project based on actual conditions encountered in the field and the results of site-specific blasting.  Test Blasts. One or more test blasts shall be performed in an area outside of critical distance of residential structures or other improvements of concern; the critical distance shall based on the scaled distance calculations with a 10 percent distance increase.  Controlled Blasting Techniques. Include techniques and procedures to control and monitor flyrock, airblast, and ground vibration:
o Flyrock mitigation measures may include: soil cover, leaving alluvial materials in place over materials to be blasted, and/or blast mats.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

o Crushed rock (i.e., 3/8”) should be used for stemming materials o Drill cuttings are not acceptable.
o All stemming materials should be tamped in-place.
 The Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall include procedures for the submittal of blast reports and record keeping.
 The Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall outline safety measures and procedures to notify property owners that blasting will occur.  If specified vibration limits are exceeded, the Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall require blasting operations to cease immediately, and a revised blasting plan shall be submitted to the City of Corona. Blasting shall not resume until a revised blasting plan has been reviewed and the Contractor has expressed in writing the conditions that will be applied to further blasting work.
 Pre-Blast Survey Requirements. The following measures shall be specified in the Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan:
o Prior to the commencement of any blasting, a pre-blast survey of the conditions of all existing property and aboveground utilities located within 500 feet of any potential blasting areas shall be conducted or as specified by the City of Corona, whichever is a lesser distance.
o Prior to the commencement of any blasting, notification of neighbors withing 1500 feet of the blasting area shall be made via first class mail or hand delivery of written notice. o The pre-blast survey shall be conducted by a third-party company with a minimum of five years of experience performing pre-blast and similar type surveys. o The pre-blast survey shall include a photographic record of all visible and accessible structures, facilities, utilities, or other improvements. If property owners refuse surveys, provide copies of certified mail letters documenting attempts to provide the survey. o The required surveys shall include a description of the interior and exterior condition of the various structures examined. Descriptions shall include the locations of any cracks, damage, or other existing defects and shall include information needed to identify and describe the defect, if any, and to evaluate the construction operations on the defect.

Survey records shall include photos of all cracks and other damaged, weathered, or otherwise deteriorated structural conditions. If necessary, macro lenses and flash illumination shall be used to ensure defects are shown clearly in the photographs. Photos shall contain an accurate date stamp. No blasting shall occur prior to the completion of surveys of surrounding residential properties.
o Surveys shall be repeated at facilities or properties where damage concerns have been expressed by individual residents, property owners, or other concerned parties. Details of any observed changes to surveyed structures and documenting photos shall be reported and submitted.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Project grading and blasting contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan requirements and shall permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Corona staff or its designee to confirm compliance. The requirements of the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan shall also be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. The City of Corona shall review all monitoring reports to ensure compliance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan and shall have the authority to stop all blasting activities on site if it is determined that blasting activities are not being conducted in conformance with the Blasting Noise and Vibration Abatement Plan. .

Additionally, project grading and blasting contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the Corona Fire Department publication, “Explosives, Blasting and Pyrotechnics Permit Guidelines per 2022 CFC,” dated December 5, 2023, and included as Technical Appendix L of Addendum No. 1 to the Skyline Heights Project Environmental Impact Report.

2.14 Population and Housing
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not induce substantial population, housing, or employment growth in the area beyond that anticipated

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

by SCAG projections. As such, impacts due to substantial population growth were disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.K-6 to 4.K-9)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would entail development of the 249.39-acre Project site with 276 dwelling units, which represents 16 fewer units than the 292 dwelling units evaluated for the Project site as part of the SHP EIR. Additionally, under existing conditions the 249.39-acre Project site is designated by the City of Corona General Plan for “Low Density Residential” land uses, which allows for residential development at densities between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Thus, based on the site’s adopted General Plan land use designation, the General Plan would allow for development of the Project site with up to 1,496 dwelling units (249.39 ac x 6 du/ac = 1,496.34 du). As such, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the construction of 276 single-family dwelling units on the Project site would not represent unplanned growth within this portion of the City of Corona. The Project would not include any major improvements to circulation facilities, and the Project’s water, sewer, and drainage improvements have been sized to serve only the proposed Project. There are no components of the Project that would result in a substantial inducement to population growth beyond the growth that was anticipated as part of the Approved Project.

Accordingly, Project impacts due to population growth would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR determined that implementation of the SHP would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. These impacts were disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.K-6 to 4.K-9)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conditions that existed at the time the SHP EIR was certified, the Project site does not contain any existing housing or residents under existing conditions. As such, the proposed Project has no potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. d) Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code). This impact was disclosed as less than significant by the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-9)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project involves the construction of 276 single-family residential units, which is 16 fewer units than the approved 292 units analyzed in the SHP EIR. The proposed Project would continue to be consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and regulations set forth by the City of Corona, including the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, and other relevant planning documents. The reduction in the number of units does not change the project’s alignment with the City’s General Plan or its Housing Element. The revised Project still supports the City’s goals for housing development by contributing to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and addressing local housing needs, consistent with the City’s General Plan and the SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Notwithstanding, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 32, previously presented under the discussion and analysis of Project impacts to Land Use and Planning in Subsection 2.11, provides a discussion and analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable policies related to Land Use and Planning, and includes a discussion and analysis of the Project’s consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element. As demonstrated in Table 32, the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies related to housing. In addition, Table 31, also presented in Subsection 2.11, demonstrates that the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with applicable regional planning policies from the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS (also known as Connect SoCal). Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

2.15 Public Services and Recreation
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
1) Fire Protection?
2) Police Protection?
3) Parks?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
4) Schools?
5) Other Public Facilities?
b. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Conflict w with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a.1) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency medical services.

However, the SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-12 to 4.L-14) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project evaluated by the SHP EIR included up to 292 single-family dwelling units, while the currently-proposed TTM 36544R1 includes only 276 dwelling units. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a slightly reduced demand for fire protection services as compared to the Approved Project evaluated by the SHP EIR.

As noted by the SHP EIR, primary fire protection services for the proposed Project would be provided by Corona Fire Department (CFD) Station No. 6, located at 110 West Upper Street in the City of Corona, or approximately 2.7

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

roadway miles southeast of the Project site (Google Earth, 2024). Other fire stations available to serve the Project include CFD Fire Stations 3 and/or 5, and these facilities would be available to provide a secondary response to the site, if needed. CFD Station 6 is staffed 24/7 by a four-person Engine Company consisting of a Captain, an engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics, and is equipped with a Type 1 Engine and Water Tender Truck. CFD Station 3 is the next closest station and is located at 790 S. Smith Ave, Corona, California. Station 3 also is staffed 24/7 by a fourperson Engine Company with a Captain, an Engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics, as well as a two-person Paramedic Squad Truck with two firefighter-paramedics. CFD Station 5, located at 1200 Canyon Crest Dr, Corona, California is located similar distance to the project site as Station 3. Station 5 also is staffed 24/7 by a four-person Engine Company with a Captain, an Engineer, and two firefighter-paramedics. (Dudek, 2025, p. 47) Call to arrival measures time from receipt of the request for assistance until the emergency apparatus arrives on the scene of a call. The CFD current goals are 1:00 minute for call processing, 1:50 minutes for turnout, and 4:00 minutes for travel time, which adds up to 6:50 minutes total response time. In 2019, the CFD retained Citygate Associates, LLC to conduct a comprehensive update of its 2013 Standard of Coverage (SOC) and headquarters services assessment to provide an ongoing foundation for fire service planning. The Citygate Standard of Coverage Assessment recommended a call to arrive (total response time) for the CFD to be 90% of compliance at 7:30 minutes, which is a best practice goal for urban areas and would include 1:30 minutes for call processing plus 2:00 minutes turnout time plus 4:00 minutes travel time. In an effort to understand fire department response capabilities, an analysis of the travel-time response coverage from the closest responding CFD Fire Stations (Fire Station 6 being the closest) was conducted. The response time analysis was conducted using travel distances that were derived from Google road data and Project development plan data. Travel times were calculated applying the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH) as well as the nationally recognized Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard formula (T=0.65 + 1.7 D, where T= time and D = distance) for comparison. The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration, and acceleration, and does not include turnout time. (Dudek, 2025, p. 49)
Table 49, Project Emergency Response Analysis using Speed Limit Formula, and Table 50, Project Emergency Response Analysis using ISO Formula, present tabular results of the emergency response time analysis using the distance at speed formula and the ISO formula, respectively. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add 2 to 3 minutes to travel time. CFD Fire Station 6 would provide an initial response as the closest existing CFD fire station. As indicated in Table 49 and Table 50, the total response time from Station 6 to the furthest point within the project development does not fully conform to the CFD current response time standard of 6 minutes and 50 seconds for “Urban” areas; however, the total response time does substantially conforms to the Citygate Assessment recommended best practice goal of 7 minutes and 30 seconds response time 90% of the time for urban areas and is estimated to arrive within approximately 7 minutes and 29 seconds (Speed Limit Formula) or 8 minutes and 05 seconds (ISO Formula). All response calculations are based on an average response speed of 35 mph, consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710. (Dudek, 2025, p. 49)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Table 49 Project Emergency Response Analysis using Speed Limit Formula Station
Travel Distance
to Project
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project Entrance1
Maximum Travel
Distance2
Maximum Travel
Time
Total Response
Time3
CFD Station 6 2.1 miles 3 minutes, 36
seconds

3.2 miles 5 minutes, 29
seconds
7 minutes, 29
seconds
CFD Station 3 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 7
seconds

3.4 miles 5 minutes, 50
seconds
7 minutes, 50
seconds
CFD Station 5 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 7
seconds

3.7 miles 6 minutes, 19
seconds
8 minutes, 19
seconds

1. Assumes travel distance and time to the closest of the three entrances off of Foothill Parkway to the respective fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.

2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.

3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH) a 35 mph travel speed along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two minutes to travel time. (Dudek, 2025, Table 7)
Table 50 Project Emergency Response Analysis using ISO Formula Station
Travel Distance
to Project
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project Entrance1
Maximum Travel
Distance2
Maximum Travel
Time
Total Response
Time3
CFD Station 6 2.1 miles 4 minutes, 13
seconds

3.2 miles 6 minutes, 05
seconds
8 minutes, 05
seconds
CFD Station 3 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 44
seconds

3.4 miles 6 minutes, 26
seconds
8 minutes, 26
seconds
CFD Station 5 2.4 miles 4 minutes, 44
seconds

3.7 miles 6 minutes, 55
seconds
8 minutes, 55
seconds

1. Assumes travel distance and time to the closest of the three entrances off of Foothill Parkway to the respective fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.

2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.

3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the project development from fire station, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two minutes to travel time. (Dudek, 2025, Table 7)
Based on these calculations, the Project’s calculated response time from the closest fire station 6 location would not achieve the CFD current response time goals of 6 minutes 50 seconds 90% of the time, however, would substantially conform to the recommended 7 minutes and 30 seconds response time goal 90% of the time and the estimate derived from the Speed Limit Formula is just over the current 7 minute 21 second response time that is being achieved 90 percent of the time by the CFD. Further, it is possible that Stations 3 or 5 would be the first responding unit in areas of the Project closest to them, reducing the estimated response times which were used with a conservative approach of the furthest portions of the Project site from each fire station. And finally, the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

estimate derived from the Speed Limit Formula is just over the current 7 minute 21 second response time that is being achieved 90 percent of the time by the CFD. (Dudek, 2025, p. 52) The Project would not adversely impact the CFD’s ability to achieve their response time standard due to the low number of calls that are projected as a result of the proposed Project, as the proposed Project only would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), as compared to the City’s 2023 population of 160,238 (USCB, 2024). Thus, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the Project’s increase in demand for fire protection services would not be substantial. However, the determination of whether additional fire response resources are considered necessary would be made by the CFD based on their internal standards of coverage analysis. (Dudek, 2025, p. 52) Although new fire protection facilities ultimately may be needed in the Project area to serve the Project and other future development in the area, it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development of any new fire protection facilities until a specific proposal and design for the facility is prepared by the CFD. Accordingly, impacts due to the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR Addendum (State CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Environmental effects of such fire protection facilities and any associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded fire protection facilities.

Notwithstanding, and as noted by the SHP EIR, the CFD is funded largely through the City’s General Fund, with other funding coming from tax revenue, fees for services, a fee charged to the local ambulance company, the emergency medical service subscription program, and developer impact fees charged to all new development which are used on facilities and equipment. To further ensure that the provision of fire and emergency medical services is not eroded by future development, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed Project, the Project Applicant would be required to pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the “Fire Facilities Fee” as amended in Chapter 3.36 of the CMC to the City for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD, as also was required by SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-2. These fees would be utilized to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new fire stations, constructing new fire stations, purchasing fire equipment for new fire stations, and providing for additional staff as needed and as identified by the City and CFD. Mandatory payment of fees would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project, thereby ensuring the Project’s impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not exceed applicable service ratios or response times for fire protections services, assuming implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures. As such, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. a.2) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection and law enforcement services.

However, the SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measures PS-3 and PS-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-12 to 4.L-14) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted by the SHP EIR, the Project site is serviced by the Corona Police Department (CPD) within Zone 4. The City’s main police station is located at 730 Public Safety Way, approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the Project site (Google Earth, 2024). As noted in the EIR prepared for the City’s General Plan, according to the 2017-2018 Corona Police Strategic Plan, one of the Corona Police Department’s goals is to maintain adequate staffing ratios, which states that a minimum of one officer per thousand residents is recommended. As also noted in the General Plan EIR, in the 2019-2020 fiscal year there were 149 sworn police personnel and the estimated 2019-2020 officers-per-thousand-residents ratio was

0.91, which was slightly lower than the goal of one officer per one thousand residents. (Corona, 2019, p. 5.15-26) The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Based on the CPD’s desired staffing ratio, the Project would result in the demand for less than one new officer within the City (123 persons x 1 officer/1,000 persons =

0.12 officers). As such, the proposed Project would not directly result in the need for any new police department personnel, and as such the Project would not result in or require any new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which could have an adverse effect on the environment.

Additionally, based on future population growth estimates contained in Connect SoCal, the City of Corona had a population of approximately 155,600 persons in 2019 and approximately 47,100 households. The number of households within the City is expected to increase by 5,800 households by 2050, representing an increase in the City’s population of approximately 19,024 persons (5,800 households x 3.28 persons/household = 19,024 persons).

Thus, the Project’s anticipated 905 residents would represent only 0.65% of the anticipated population growth within the City through 2050. (SCAG, 2024, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 13) As noted by the SHP EIR, the CPD’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties, service fees, and allowed government assistance including the General Fund, development impact fees, asset forfeiture funds, traffic offender funds, and various grants. To further ensure that the provision of police protection and law enforcement services are not eroded by future development, the SHP EIR imposed Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires the Project Applicant to pay the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to CMC Chapter 16.23 prior to issuance of building permits, which would provide funding for future public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Based on the preceding analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements of the CPD, payment of the City’s DIF fee, and mandatory compliance with applicable provisions of the CMC with respect to site design and access, impacts related to police protection and law enforcement services would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.
a.3) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
b) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives parks and recreational facilities. Further, the SHP EIR found that the SHP could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated, and found that the SHP could include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-15 to

4.L-18)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project includes three proposed public parks on 9.25 acres and five private parks on 2.17 acres, for a total of 11.42 acres. However, impacts associated with the construction of these parks has been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum. The physical construction of the on-site public and private parks is addressed under the relevant issue areas identified throughout this EIR Addendum (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources). Under each relevant topic, the Project’s impacts are determined to be less than significant, or mitigation measures from SHP EIR (as modified/supplemented herein) previously were identified to reduce impacts to the maximum feasible extent.

There are no components of the proposed on-site public and private parks that would result in physical environmental impacts that have not already been addressed and accounted for throughout this EIR Addendum.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

According to data available from the United States Census Bureau, the City of Corona has an average of approximately 3.28 residents per household (USCB, 2024). Thus, the proposed Project evaluated herein would generate a future population of approximately 905 residents (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons). In

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

order to meet the parkland standard established by General Plan Policy PR-1.1 of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the Project would require a minimum of 2.72 acres of parkland (905.28 persons x 3.0 acres/1,000 persons = 2.716 acres). The proposed Project would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72 acres of parkland. Accordingly, it can be concluded that because the Project would exceed its parkland requirements, future Project residents would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, as any increased use of existing recreational facilities by Project residents would be offset by other City residents utilizing the public parks proposed as part of the Project. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, because the Project would provide excess parkland on site, the proposed Project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded park facilities off site in order to meet the City’s target parkland ratio. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities off site which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. a.4) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. The SHP EIR concluded that tis impact was considered less than significant with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-6. (Corona, 2015, p.

4.L-18)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Thus, the Project’s overall demand for school services would be reduced in comparison to the project evaluated by the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the mitigation measures identified in the SHP EIR, which require the payment of required development impact fees to off-set impacts associated with increased demand for school services and facilities, as is also required by CMC Chapter 16.27 (Mitigation of Local School Impaction). Pursuant to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for project-related impacts to school services. As such, and assuming compliance with applicable mitigation measures from the SHP EIR and mandatory payment of school fees in accordance with CMC Chapter 16.27, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

altered facilities for school services, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. a.5) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. The SHP EIR concluded that this impact would be considered less than significant with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-7. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-18 to 4.L-19)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would result in the introduction of approximately 905 residents to the site (276 units x 3.28 persons/unit = 905.28 persons), or approximately 123 fewer people than the 1,028 new residents that were assumed by the SHP EIR (USCB, 2024; Corona, 2015, p. 4.K-7). Thus, the Project’s overall demand for library services would be reduced in comparison to the project evaluated by the SHP EIR. Although new library facilities may be under consideration by the City of Corona Public Library (CPL) in the Project area, it is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development of any new library facilities until a specific proposal and design for the facility is prepared by the CPL. Accordingly, impacts due to the construction of new or expanded library facilities are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR Addendum (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15145). Environmental effects of such library facilities and any associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded library facilities. Any mitigation measures required for new or expanded library facilities could be funded, in part, from property taxes, including increased property taxes resulting from buildout of the Project site.

To further ensure that the provision of library services is not eroded by future development, the SHP EIR imposed Mitigation Measure PS-7, which requires the Project Applicant to pay the City’s DIF fees pursuant to CMC Chapter

16.23 prior to issuance of building permits, which would provide funding for future library improvements and facilities. Mandatory payment of the City’s DIF fees as required by Mitigation Measure PS-7 and CMC Chapter

16.23 would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to library services to less-than-significant levels.

Based on the preceding analysis, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, Project impacts to library services would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. d) Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP could conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and Municipal Code). The SHP EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified throughout the SHP EIR. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-19 to 4.L-23) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017. However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024.

Accordingly, Table 51, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Public Services and Recreation, provides an updated analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2020 General Plan policies related to cultural resources. As indicated in Table 51, the Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to public services and recreation.

Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with General Plan goals and policies related to public services and recreation would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

Table 51 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Public Services and Recreation
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal PR-1: A well-designed system of parks and associated facilities that are sufficient in acreage, type, and
distribution, that are designed to provide a quality
recreational experience, and that meet the diverse needs of Corona residents.

Consistent. As discussed herein, the proposed Project
would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland to meet the City’s target ratio of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Policy PR-1.1: Seek all creative means to facilitate the provision of at least three acres for every 1,000 residents of useable, attractive, well-maintained, and amenityappropriate parkland.

Consistent. As discussed herein, the proposed Project
would accommodate a total of 9.25 acres of public parks and 2.17 acres of private parks, which would exceed the Quimby Ordinance requirement to accommodate 2.72
acres of parkland to meet the City’s target ratio of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Policy PR-1.2: Provide a variety of park types (e.g.,
neighborhood, community, major, and special user) with
an appropriate mix of amenities that are designed for
accessibility and use to meet the diverse needs of
residents.

Consistent. The proposed Project accommodates three
public parks and five private parks, which would provide a variety of park types to meet the needs of future Project residents.

Policy PR-1.3: Encourage distribution of parks, open space, and recreational amenities throughout the City, to the
extent feasible, to maximize convenient access for
residents, primarily, and secondarily to the business
community.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, as noted above, the Project’s
proposed parks would exceed the amount of required
parkland on site by 8.7 acres.

Policy PR-1.4: Strengthen partnerships and collaborations with the Corona-Norco and Alvord school districts and
Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
other community organizations to increase the shared use of facilities for the effective delivery of services and programs.

Project.

Policy PR-1.5: Operate and maintain park and recreational facilities to facilitate a high-quality experience; regularly modernize parks and associated facilities where needed, incorporating best practices in sustainable designs.

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

Policy PR-1.6: Enhance the safety of parks and associated facilities through crime design, age-appropriate
playgrounds, crime prevention technology, patrols, and
community volunteer efforts.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. All of the parks proposed on site would meet all applicable City standards.

Policy PR-1.7: Seek feasible alternatives to raise sufficient funds to finance regular maintenance repairs and
modernization of existing public parks as well as the
development of new parks.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-1.8: Enhance options to access parks, community centers, and other recreational facilities through transit, bikeways, and walking paths that are useable for people of all ages and abilities.

Consistent. Policy PR-1.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed
Project. Notwithstanding, the Project’s parks have been designed to integrate to the extent feasible the existing and planned trails and trail head improvements to ensure internal non-vehicular mobility between these amenities.

Policy PR-1.9: Increase stewardship and volunteerism
opportunities for Corona youth, adults, schools, and
community organizations to participate in parks and
recreation events, projects, and programs.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-1.10: Provide opportunities for creative
expression (e.g., public art, signage, pavement design, etc.) to improve the beauty of parks and to celebrate local
history, culture, and values.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-1.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PR-2 and Policies PR-2.1 through PR 2.9 Not Applicable. Goal PR-2 and Policies PR-2.1 through 2.9 relate to City recreational programs and are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PR-3 and Policies PR 3.1 through PR 3.10 Not Applicable. Goal PR-3 and Policies PR 3.1 through PR

3.10 provide direction to City staff and decision makers regarding the availability of educational resources and programming, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PR-6: A comprehensive and quality system of off-road hiking, biking, and equestrian trails that are, to the extent feasible, accessible to people of all ages, and connect residents to natural resources surrounding Corona.

Consistent. The Project incorporates trail heads for existing natural trails within the4 Project’s proposed open space areas as well as trails within the on-site public and private parks, which would be accessible to people of all ages, and would help the City achieve the intent of this policy to connect residents to natural resources surrounding
Corona.

Policy PR-6.1: Strive to identify and connect multipurpose trails to schools, local and regional parks, residential neighborhoods, open space areas, downtown, bikeways,
Consistent. The Project’s proposed parks and trail head improvements would serve to identify and connect the
existing natural trails to the proposed on-site amenities,

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and other community destinations in Corona. and would include a connection to Foothill Parkway, thereby providing access to other portions of the City of Corona.

Policy PR-6.2: Require new developments to provide access opportunities to trails that exist in their area or to
proposed trails linking parks, recreational areas,
neighborhoods, and other areas of high public
concentration with a trail design suitable to the area or contribute improvements, dedications, or fees to extend trails.

Consistent. The Project includes several trail head
improvements, which would serve to identify access
locations to the existing natural trails throughout the Project’s proposed open space areas.

Policy PR-6.3: Encourage creation of a multipurpose trail system for hiking, biking, and equestrian use in areas
commonly used for these purposes, such as along washes, creeks, drainages, hillsides, parks, and other public use areas. Trails created within the MSHCP conservation areas that are not identified as a covered activity in the Western Riverside County MSHCP are to avoid and minimize
impacts on biological resources by following the Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities [MSHCP Section 7.4.2].

Consistent. The Project includes several trail head
improvements, which would serve to identify access
locations to the existing natural trails throughout the Project’s proposed open space areas. The trails would not afford access to any portion of the Project’s open space areas that would include mitigation areas as required by the MSHCP.

Policy PR-6.4: Cooperate with Riverside County in
establishing and completing portions of the county’s
backbone trail system that crosses Corona.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to coordinate with Riverside
County in the establishment and completion of a regional trail system, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.5: Ensure trails that navigate through
residential neighborhoods are not obtrusive, invade the privacy of residents, or jeopardize the safety of
neighborhoods.

Consistent. The trails proposed as part of the Project
would not be obtrusive, invade the privacy of future
Project residents, or jeopardize the safety of
neighborhoods.

Policy PR-6.6: Locate, design, and regulate the use of
multipurpose trails so that they reflect the character and environment where they are located and do not negatively impact natural habitat, wildlife, landforms, or cultural resources or MSHCP Conservation areas.

Consistent. All of the Project’s proposed trails, including natural trails within the Project’s open space areas, are designed to reflect the character and environment where they are located, and because these are all existing trails the trails within the Project’s open space would not
negatively impact natural habitat, wildlife, landforms, or cultural resources or MSHCP Conservation areas
Policy PR-6.7: Initiate and maintain dialogue with federal, state, and local governments to coordinate access and
maintenance of trails that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to coordinate with other
agencies regarding cross-jurisdictional maintenance of
trails, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.8: Promote the safe use of trails and require infrastructure and other public rights-of-way to be
designed and developed to accommodate trails in a
manner that is safe and compatible with the intended
primary use of the rights-of-way or easement, where
feasible.

Consistent. The Project’s proposed trails would occur
either in open spaces, within on-site parks, or within the public rights-of-way, and have been designed to be safe and compatible with the primary uses of these areas.

Policy PR-6.9: Seek available funding for the maintenance Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.9 provides direction to City

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and/or establishment of multi-use trails that accommodate bicycle and pedestrian users.
staff and decision makers related to trail funding, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.10: Consider numerous outlets to make the
city’s Trails Master Inventory or Trails Master Plan and bicycle plan easily accessible to the public to increase public awareness.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.11: Promote the use of trails and bicycle routes through use of wayfinding signs or placards.

Consistent. The Project would include trail head
improvements that would serve to promote the use of the on-site trails.

Policy PR-6.12: Raise public awareness of the health
benefits of walking and bicycling, the safe use of the
streets and sidewalks, and the availability of trails, bicycle routes, and greenways.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.12 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.13: Encourage the establishment of various
trail classifications in the City that are suited to the environmental context on which they are located and the intended purpose and use of the trail.

Not Applicable. Policy PR-6.13 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PR-6.14: Consider establishment of trail heads
and/or staging areas with parking for newly created trails, to the extent feasible; and if the opportunity arises,
incorporate trail heads and/or staging areas into existing trail areas.

Consistent. The proposed public parks on site would
accommodate parking areas, and the parks have been
designed to provide connections to the on-site trail system, including the existing natural trails within the Project’s proposed open space areas.

Goal PS-5: Ensure that there is an adequate service level of law enforcement services provided for all residents, visitors, and businesses throughout the City of Corona.

Consistent. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, the proposed Project would not adversely
affect the service level for law enforcement services.

Policy PS-5.1: Ensure that police staffing, facilities, and equipment are expanded commensurably to serve the
needs of the City’s growing population, business
community, and visitor population.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-5.2: Identify and provide sites for police facility location(s) or substations in different locations based on community need, phasing, and timing; periodically assess the needs for establishing or relocating substations.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would not result in or require any new or expanded police protection facilities.

Policy PS-5.3: Assess the impacts of incremental increases in community development and resulting impacts on traffic congestion, municipal infrastructure capacity, and
emergency response times. Ensure through the design
review process that proposed projects provide mitigation to maintain law enforcement services at acceptable, safe levels.

Consistent. As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, the proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to police protection services. In addition, the Project would be required to implement
improvements, pay DIF/TUMF fees, and make fair-share
contributions towards transportation improvements
currently not identified for funding, which would ensure that Project-related traffic does not degrade the Level of Service (LOS) along stury area roadways.

Policy PS-5.4: Periodically evaluate population growth, development characteristics, level of service, and incidence of crime in the City of Corona to ensure that an adequate level of police service is maintained.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, based on the City’s current
standards, the Project would result in the need for less

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
than one sworn police officer. Project impacts to police protection facilities would be less than significant with mandatory payment of the City’s DIF fee.

Policy PS-5.5: Require new and expanded development
projects or those in which change operations to contribute an appropriate amount of impact fees based on their
proportional impact and demand for police services.

Consistent. In conformance with SHP EIR Mitigation
Measure PS-4 and as required by CMC Chapter 16.23, the
Project Applicant would be required to pay the City’s
impact fees, portions of which are allocated to police
services and facilities.

Policy PS-5.6: Cooperate with all Riverside County law
enforcement agencies and other public safety providers to provide backup police assistance and mutual aid in
emergency situations.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-5.7: Conduct periodic police related emergency management exercises with City personnel and
surrounding jurisdictions to maintain readiness for
emergency situations should they arise.

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

Policy PS-5.8: Strive to meet police response times for Priority 1 calls throughout the community consistent with the departmental strategic plan and level of service
objectives.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-5.9: Continue to work the Corona-Norco Unified School District to provide services that make school
environments safe and welcoming places for learning and personal enrichment and growth for students.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-6 and Policies PS-6.1 through PS-6.6 Not Applicable. Goal PS-6 and Policies PS-6.1 through PS6.6 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to coordination and managing the City’s emergency operations, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-7: Encourage the use of land use and
development configuration and site design standards
within residential and other developments to minimize
crime and improve the safety for residents, visitors, and employees.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be subject to all CMC requirements related to land use, development
configuration, and site design standards, and would serve to minimize crime and improve the safety for future
residents and visitors.

Policy PS-7.1: Require larger developments to incorporate site design features that help ensure maximum visibility and security for entrances, pathways, streets and
sidewalks, corridors, public and private open space, and parking lots and structures.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be subject to all CMC requirements related to site design, and the Project’s design would ensure maximum visibility and security for entrances, pathways, streets and sidewalks, corridors,
public and private open space, and parking lots and
structures.

Policy PS-7.2: Require the incorporation of appropriate lighting that provides adequate exterior illumination
around commercial, business park, public spaces, parking lots, and multifamily structures.

Consistent. Lighting within the proposed on-site parks
would meet all applicable CMC requirements for minimum
levels of illumination.

Policy PS-7.3: Work with traffic engineers to develop
methods through design, enforcement, and engineering to reduce the volume and severity of vehicle, pedestrian, and Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
bicycling accidents citywide and around sensitive land uses such as schools, apartments, and other highly traveled
uses.

Policy PS-7.4: Enhance public awareness and participation in crime prevention by encouraging changes to be made
through crime prevention by design (vegetation selection and maintenance, motion sensors, lighting, etc.) and
establishing and participating with police in neighborhood safety and crime prevention programs (e.g. neighborhood watch).

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

Policy PS-7.5: Require large-scale retail developments to incorporate video surveillance security systems within their facilities and grounds to monitor open public spaces and, where appropriate and feasible, provide office space for police facilities.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.5 relates to large-scale retail developments, while the Project does not include any
proposed retail land uses. Thus, this policy is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-7.6: Provide opportunities for police department review and input regarding appropriate methods to
mitigate the impacts of land use permits that have
functions and characteristics that may impose a higher
than normal level of security and police protection.

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

Policy PS-7.7: Provide appropriate security measures
around sensitive essential public facilities, such as water, reclaimed water, radio towers, and other facilities required for use for public health and safety purposes.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-7.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-8: Ensure that there is an adequate service level of fire protection and suppression services provided for all residents, visitors, and businesses throughout the City of Corona to meet community expectations and budgetary
resources for safety.

Consistent. The analysis of Threshold a.1), above,
demonstrates that the Project would have less-thansignificant impacts on the CFD’s level of service standards with mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.

Policy PS-8.1: Provide needed fire stations and maintain them in good condition to enable timely and effective
response to emergencies in keeping with city standards, community service expectations, and city financial
resources.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Additionally, the analysis of Threshold a.1), above, demonstrates that the Project would not result or require any new or expanded fire protection facilities, and the Project would be subject to mandatory payment of the
City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.

Policy PS-8.2: Ensure that fire staff at all levels are sufficient in number and appropriately trained to
effectively plan and respond to all types of fire and related emergencies in the community.

Consistent. The analysis of Threshold a.1), above,
demonstrates that the Project would be adequately served by fire protection facilities, and any new staffing that may be warranted would be funded in part through the
Project’s mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.

Policy PS-8.3: Maintain mutual aid, automatic aid, and
other multi-agency cooperative agreements to ensure that urban fire, wildfire, tactical response, hazmat, and other services are available at all times.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy PS-8.4: Regular maintain, upgrade, and replace fire apparatus and support vehicles and needed equipment to
be prepared and effectively respond to fire, traffic,
medical, and related emergencies.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-8.5: Conduct periodic fire-related exercises with City public safety personnel and those of nearby
jurisdictions, and the state to remain prepared for
situations requiring multi-jurisdictional coordinated
response.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-8.6: Participate in and conduct regular training of all fire and related personnel to ensure that staff are prepared to address emergency medical, fire, and other
related emergencies in the community.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-8.7: Adhere to and periodically update fire
department strategic plans, policies and procedures, and other internal standards to continuously meet service level requirements and priorities, including department
response times.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-8.8: Ensure that revenues are collected from new development, existing developments, and other land uses in an amount that is commensurate with their respective impact on overall city fire operations.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would be subject to
mandatory payment of the City’s Fire Facilities Fee
pursuant to CMC Chapter 3.36.

Policy PS-8.9: Continue to monitor and adhere to the latest changes in state legislation and guidelines with respect to fire planning, prevention, and suppression.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-8.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-9 and Policies PS-9.1 through PS-9.9 Not Applicable. Goal PS-9 and Policies PS-9.1 through PS9.9 provide direction to City staff and decision makers and are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal PS-10: Reduce fire risk to life and property through effective land use planning and compliance with federal, state, local laws, ordinances, and standards.

Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would ensure risks to life and property are minimized in compliance with all applicable federal, state, local laws, ordinances, and standards.

Policy PS-10.1: Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of high fire risk areas; if not feasible, require construction and other methods to harden and
minimize damage for existing/planned facilities in such areas.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-10.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy PS-10.2: Require all improved and new homes,
structures, and facilities in the very high fire hazard severity zones to adhere to additional fire safe design standards consistent with state law and local practice.

Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would fully comply with all
applicable City requirements related to fire safe design and in accordance with applicable State laws and local
practices.

Policy PS-10.3: Require all improved and new Consistent. The proposed Project’s application materials

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
developments to be thoroughly reviewed for their impact on safety and the provision of fire protection services as part of the development review process.
were routed to the CFD for review as part of the Project’s development review process, and all comments received
from the CFD have been addressed as part of revisions to the Project’s plans and application materials.

Policy PS-10.4: Require new and rehabilitated homes and structures to meet or exceed City fire prevention standards and state law, including building access, construction
design, sprinklers, and others as required by Corona Fire.

Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the Project’s proposed fire management measures would meet or exceed City fire prevention standards and all applicable requirements
under State law.

Policy PS-10.5: Require all new commercial, industrial, institutional, multiple-unit housing, mixed-use, and oneand two-family dwelling developments to install fire protection systems and encourage the use of automatic
sprinkler systems where not required by local codes and ordinances.

Consistent. The analysis presented herein in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, demonstrates that the fire protection
measures included as part of the Project, which include ignition and ember resistant construction, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D and 13R automatic
interior fire sprinkler systems, non-combustible parking areas, managed landscape areas, requirements for water
supply, fire apparatus access throughout, improved
accessibility for fire fighter personnel, and fuel
modification zone implementation, and would meet or
exceed all local codes and ordinances.

Policy PS-10.6: Require fuel modification plans and
vegetation clearance standards for development in
VHFHSZs to protect structures from wildfire, protect
wildlands from structure fires, and provide safe access routes for the community and firefighters within the
project boundary, which may be extended pursuant to
required findings when in accordance with state law, local ordinance, rule or regulation and no feasible mitigation measures are possible.

Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, the Project would implement fuel
modification zones throughout the proposed development
to protect future on-site structures from wildland fire hazards, and the Project accommodates safe access routes for the community and firefighters within the Project
boundaries.

Policy PS-10.7: Condition approval of parcel maps and
tentative maps in VHFHSZs based on meeting or exceeding the SRA Fire Safe Regulations and the fire hazard reduction around buildings and structures regulations within the
project boundary, which may be extended pursuant to
required findings when in accordance with state law, local ordinance, rule or regulation and no feasible mitigation measures are possible.

Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Subsection

2.19, Wildfire, the Project would meet or exceed all
applicable SRA Fire Safe Regulations and the fire hazard reduction requirements around buildings and structures as required by the CMC and State law.

Policy PS-10.8: Coordinate with the Utilities Department to ensure that adequate water supply and flows are available for firefighting; where inadequate, ensure provision of offsite water supply and transport.

Consistent. The Project incorporates a 2.5 million gallon Zone 5 reservoir that would be located within the central portion of the Project site, and would serve to ensure
adequate water supplies are available in the local area for firefighting.

Policy PS-10.9: Continue to require visible premise
identification and signage per Corona’s Premise
Identification Guideline that meet or exceed SRA and CFC requirements.

Not Applicable. Policy PS-10.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance. Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format, and have been made to reflect the results of the Project’s PRA. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measures reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.

PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features, all of which shall implement the recommendations of the Project’s Fire Protection Plan (“FPP”; Technical Appendix K to Addendum No. 1 to the Skyline Heights Project (SHP) Environmental Impact Report [“EIR”; State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003]). CFD shall review the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features to ensure that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the FPP including, but not limited to roadway design to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; driveway and fire lane width; turning radii inside and outside; grades/elevations; adequate onsite space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing and locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; availability of adequate firefighting water flow; and approved building materials.

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

PS-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the Project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.

PS-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.

PS-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, and in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.

PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the Project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fee to the CNUSD.

PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.

2.16 Transportation
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially Reduce
Significant Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Reduce the Level of Service (LOS) below LOS
D with the exception of Green River Road at
SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road
intersections for which LOS E is acceptable?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Reduce the LOS below LOS D with the
exception of the segment of Green River Road
west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the
minimum acceptable LOS?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Result in insufficient off-street parking that
would not comply with the City of Corona
parking requirements?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project reduce the Level of Service (LOS) below LOS D with the exception of Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections for which LOS E is acceptable? b) Would the Project reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of the segment of Green River Road west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS? c) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that with regard to construction, aside from the nuisance traffic that would occur as a result of constructionPage 3438 of 3613

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

related activities (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), impacts resulting from construction traffic would be less than significant. With regard to operation, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would add trips to the transportation network. The SHP EIR also found that the Existing With SHP Project, 2020 With SHP Project, and 2035 With SHP Project would result in significant impacts at the four study intersections identified in SHP EIR Table

4.M-7 during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-4, the SHP EIR concluded that these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp.

4.M-23 to 4.M-33)
The SHP EIR also found that under Existing With SHP conditions, a significant impact would occur on Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road if the SHP were to be developed prior to the completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension. In the event that were to occur, the SHP EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-5, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The SHP EIR also found that the SHP would result in less-than-significant impacts to roadway segments under both Year 2020 and Year 2035 scenarios.

In addition, the SHP EIR found that all of the roadways within the SHP have been designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) that would occur on each of the segments. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that no mitigation measures would be required, with exception of Mitigation Measure TR-5. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.M-33 to

4.M-34)
With respect to Threshold c., Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed in 2013, which required that by July 1, 2020, a project’s transportation projects must be evaluated based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) measure, instead of evaluating impacts based on LOS criteria. In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA Guidelines including the incorporation of the SB 743 modifications. The Guidelines changes were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and are now in effect. Therefore, as of July 1, 2020, LOS can no longer be the basis for determining an environmental effect under CEQA, and the analysis of impacts to transportation is now based on VMT. As this threshold of significance addressing VMT was not in place at the time the SHP EIR was certified, this threshold was not evaluated as part of the SHP EIR. Notwithstanding, the supporting materials for the SHP EIR disclosed a quantification of VMT. The VMT discussion was utilized in the calculation of air quality emissions only and was not addressed in the context of transportation-related impacts. Although the SHP EIR did not draw a conclusion under the topic of transportation, the SHP EIR contained enough information about projected trip lengths associated with the proposed SHP’s traffic generation that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the project’s potential effect due to VMT on the topic of transportation was readily available to the public.

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. On December 28, 2018, updates to the CEQA Guidelines were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). As part of the updates to the CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of significant for evaluation of impacts to transportation have changed. As required by California SB 743, new Threshold b. of the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation requires an evaluation of impacts due to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which replaced the LOS criteria (i.e., automobile delay) and Congestion Management Plan (CMP) consistency criteria that have been utilized in the past to evaluate potential effects to transportation under CEQA. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), “…a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(c) is clear that “[t]he provisions of [§ 15064.3] shall apply prospectively as described in [State CEQA Guidelines] section 15007.” State CEQA Guidelines § 15007(c) specifically states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” As noted above, the Guidelines changes with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, while the SHP EIR was certified in 2017. As such, and in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.3(c) and 15007(c), revisions to the SHP EIR are not required under CEQA for the proposed Project in order to conform to the new requirements established by State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3. Further, because the proposed Project would result in 16 fewer units than the Approval Project, the proposed Project would reduce the VMT generated by the development of the Project site when compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant.

Although impacts to LOS no longer are considered significant under CEQA, in order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential traffic-related impacts, a Traffic Analysis technical report (herein, “TA”) was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads (herein, “UC”) as required by the City. This report is entitled, “Skyline Heights (TTM No 36544R1) Traffic Analysis,” is dated January 23, 2025, and is included as Technical Appendix J to this EIR Addendum (UC, 2025). As shown in Table 52, Trip Generation Comparison, the proposed Project evaluated herein would result in an overall reduction in daily traffic by approximately 176 trips as compared to the project evaluated in the SHP EIR. Furthermore, the Project’s TA identifies required improvements and DIF/TUMF fee contributions, implementation of which would fully mitigate the Project’s potential impacts to local study area transportation facilities. Accordingly, with mandatory payment of fees and construction of transportation-related improvements as recommended by the Projects’ TA, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not reduce the LOS at any study area intersections below the applicable City LOS standards at any study area facility. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.
d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not result in the realignment of any existing streets thereby creating a hazardous design feature. With the implementation of the project design features, the SHP EIR found that the proposed roadways within the tract would provide adequate sight access and would not result in a substantial increase in hazards. The SHP EIR Table 52 Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Approved Project1 292 DU 55 164 219 184 108 292 2,780
Proposed Project 276 DU 51 143 194 164 96 260 2,604
Difference in Trips: -4 -21 -25 -20 -12 -32 -176 1 Source: Trip Generation Source: Skyline Heights Traffic Impact Analysis Report, July 16, 2013, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG).
2 DU = Dwelling units.
(UC, 2025, Table 4-2)
concluded that roadway design of the SHP would result in less-than-significant Impacts. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.L-34 to 4.L-35)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve the realignment of any existing streets, which could potentially create hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The proposed roadways within the Project site have been designed to provide adequate sight access and to meet all applicable City requirements, thereby reducing the potential for hazardous traffic conditions. None of the Project-related roadway improvements would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project is proposed within a portion of the City of Corona that is characterized by residential development, and as such traffic generated by the proposed Project would not result in the introduction of traffic-related hazards due to incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the internal roadways would be constructed to accommodate the projected traffic and would not create hazardous circumstances. In addition, with the implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5 the SHP project would not result in significant impacts at intersections or on roadway segments within the study area. Finally, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would be reviewed by the appropriate agencies to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in accordance with City requirements. The SHP EIR concluded that impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-35) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project is subject to CMC Section 17.59.170 (Fire Protection), which requires the provision of unobstructed fire protection equipment and access easements. The CFD conducted a review of the proposed TTM 36544R1, and determined that the Project’s proposed street design would serve to afford adequate access for emergency vehicles throughout the portions of the Project site planned for development as part of the Project. Furthermore, the Project would not affect any roadways that provide emergency access under existing conditions. With required adherence to City requirements for emergency access, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.
f) Would the Project result in insufficient off-street parking that would not comply with the City of Corona parking requirements?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would provide parking within garages in each of the single family residences. In addition, the SHP EIR found that parking would be provided on some of the proposed streets. Therefore, the SHP EIR concluded that the SHP would provide sufficient parking in compliance with the City of Corona parking requirements, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-36)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project is designed to comply with the City of Corona's parking requirements. Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

residential units would include a two-car garage, in accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of spaces required), which mandates two covered parking spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling (Corona, 2024). Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in insufficient off-street parking and the Project would fully comply the City of Corona parking requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. g) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As such, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, p. 4.L-36)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The only applicable policies, plans, or programs related to transportation and that are applicable to the proposed Project are the goals and policies contained within the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element. The SHP EIR included an analysis of consistency with the Circulation Element policies that were in effect at the time. However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024. Table 53, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Transportation, provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the transportation-related goals and policies from the 2020 General Plan, which are included in the General Plan Circulation Element. As indicated in Table 53, the proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to transportation. Therefore, and consistent with the finding of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

Table 53 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Transportation Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal CE-1: A roadway network of complete streets that
provide accessibility for all users of all ages and abilities while maintaining context sensitivity to the land uses
identified in the Land Use Element.

Consistent. The Project site does not include any planned Circulation Element Roadways, while Foothill Parkway is fully improved to its General Plan standard as a Secondary 4 Lane. All proposed roadway improvements on site would be constructed to all applicable City standards.

Policy CE-1.1: Implement complete streets by limiting
capacity to only serve expected demand on City streets
(e.g., do not overbuild roadways) while discouraging
regional cut-through and maximizing accessibility for users Consistent. All roadways proposed as part of the Project have been designed to include the minimum amount of
required right-of-way, and the Project site does not afford any access for regional cut-through traffic.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
to adjacent land uses in a safe and efficient way.

Policy CE-1.2: Support roadway maintenance programs
that inspect, repair, and rehabilitate pavement surfaces in order to preserve the high quality of City streets and
thoroughfares.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding roadway maintenance, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy CE-1.3: Provide for safe roadway conditions by
adhering to nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices.

Consistent. All Project-related roadway improvements
would be in accordance with all applicable City
requirements, which include standards that meet
nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction practices.

Policy CE-1.4: Design and employ traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.4 provides direction to city staff and decision makers, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy CE-1.5: Maintain Level of Service D or better on arterial streets in the City. Develop and maintain a list of locations where LOS E or LOS F are considered acceptable and would be exempt from this level of service policy.

Considerations for LOS exemption include lack of available right-of-way, environmental constraints, or other modes of travel (such as bicycle or pedestrians). Key locations
identified for LOS exemption are:
• Green River Road at SR-91
• Lincoln Avenue at SR-91
• Main Street at SR-91
• Sixth Street, between East Grand Boulevard and West
Grand Boulevard
• McKinley Avenue at SR-91
• Hidden Valley Parkway at I-15
• Magnolia Avenue at I-15
• Ontario Avenue at I-15
• El Cerrito Road at I-15
• Cajalco Road at I-15
• Weirick Road at I-15
• Other locations as approved by the City
Consistent. A Project-specific Traffic Analysis (TA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix J. In conformance with this policy, the Project’s TA demonstrates that with Project-related improvements, payment of DIF/TUMF fees, and fair-share contributions for improvements not currently identified for funding, all
study area facilities would achieve an acceptable LOS. All recommendations of the Project’s TA would be made
conditions of Project approval.

Policy CE-1.6: Coordinate street system improvements and signalization with regional transportation efforts, including the Regional Transportation Plan, the State Transportation Improvement Program, the Riverside County General Plan, the Community and Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process, the Congestion Management
Program, and other relevant regional and subregional
efforts and programs.

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

Policy CE-1.7: Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow.

Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement
access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.7 relates to driveways along arterials streets, while no arterial streets occur on or adjacent to the Project site.

Policy CE-1.8: Restrict on-street parking on arterial streets, Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.8 relates to parking along

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and in cases where on-street parking may be necessary,
implement design features that separate parking spaces
from street lanes.
arterials streets, while no arterial streets occur on or adjacent to the Project site.

Policy CE-1.9: Design and operate secondary, local, and collector streets to discourage their use as through traffic routes. Utilize residential neighborhood traffic control techniques to reduce cut-through traffic impacts.

Consistent. Given the Project site’s location at the western edge of the City of Corona with the Cleveland National
Forest abutting the property to the west, the Project site would not accommodate any through traffic routes that
could adversely affect future Project residents.

Policy CE-1.10: Require a traffic analysis to be prepared in accordance with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and require projects to mitigate impacts on the City’s circulation system that exceed the City’s adopted service thresholds for near term and future conditions.

Consistent. A Project-specific Traffic Analysis (TA) was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical
Appendix J. The Project’s TA was prepared in full
conformance with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, and all recommendations of the Project’s TA would become conditions of Project approval.

Policy CE-1.11: Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for
emergency vehicles, including undeveloped areas or those on the hillsides in high or very high fire hazard severity zones.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to provide
efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles, and
implementation of the proposed Project would improve
fire access to the proposed on-site open space areas.

Policy CE-1.12: Consider the effects on transportation
systems of public utility improvements, including
extensions of underground pipelines and overhead
transmission lines and associated utility rights-of-way.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.12 relates to public utility improvements that could adversely affect transportation systems, while the Project does not include or require any major public utility improvements that could affect
transportation systems.

Policy CE-1.13: Ensure that, to the extent possible, all pipelines and electrical transmission lines are placed
underground.

Consistent. In conformance with this policy, all Projectrelated pipelines and electrical transmission lines would be placed underground.

Policy CE-1.14: Design Sixth Street from Smith Avenue to El Sobrante Road as a Mixed Use Boulevard, including
measures that support mixed-use development. Allow for
the design of Sixth Street from East Grand Boulevard to West Grand Boulevard to be a Downtown District by
reducing this segment to two travel lanes and providing a complete street concept to support Downtown uses.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.14 relates to Sixth Street from Smith Avenue to El Sobrante Road as a Mixed Use
Boulevard, which is located more than two miles from the Project site.

Policy CE-1.15: Recognize the unique character of Special Residential Streets, including Main Street south of Grand Boulevard and Fullerton Avenue between Magnolia
Avenue and Grand Boulevard. Implement improvements
sensitive to adjacent residential uses. These may include parking cutouts, raised medians, roundabouts, bike lanes, special treatments at pedestrian way crossings, peakperiod parking restrictions, and so forth.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-1.15 relates to Special Streets mostly within the more urbanized portions of the City of Corona, and is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Policy CE-1.16: Plan for emerging autonomous vehicles and transportation network companies (TNCs) by designing
and/or managing curb space to allow for safe pick-up and drop-off.

Consistent. As a proposed residential community, the
Project would accommodate sufficient space for
autonomous vehicles along internal Project roadways.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal CE-2 and Policies CE-2.1 through CE-2.5 Not Applicable. Goal CE-2 and Policies CE-2.1 through CE2.3 and CE-2.5 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to coordination with other regional
transportation agencies and obtaining funding for
transportation improvements, and are unrelated to the
proposed Project. Additionally, while Policy CE-2.4
requires implementing developments to implement the
General Plan Circulation Map, the Project site is not
identified for any Circulation Element roadways, and
improvements to Foothill Parkway, a General Plandesignated “Secondary 4-lane” facility, already are in place.

Goal CE-3 and Policies CE-3.1 through CR-3.3 Not Applicable. Goal CE-3 and Policies CE-3.1 through CR3.3 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to managing the City’s transportation network, and are unrelated to the proposed Project.

Goal CE-4 and Policies CE-4.1 through CE-4.10 Not Applicable. Goal CE-4 and Policies CE-4.1 through CE4.10 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to the public transportation system, while General Plan Figure CE-2 (Transit Routes) does not identify any existing transit routes within the Project vicinity.

Goal CE-5: Develop and maintain convenient bikeway and
pedestrian systems to satisfy both recreational desires and transportation needs using a complete streets approach to accommodate users of all modes, abilities, and needs.

Consistent. As part of the Project, and as discussed in the proposed SHSP, separate trails for hikers and bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway within the public park. Two raised bike crossings at the road within the
public park are designed to provide safe trail crossings for cyclists. Additionally, all on-site roadways would include sidewalks (including, in some areas, curb-separated
sidewalks), and all on-site roadways would accommodate
bicycle traffic.

Policy CE-5.1: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to national standards and
uniform practices; adhere to accessibility requirements for people with disabilities.

Consistent. All improvements proposed as part of the
Project would be in accordance with City standards, which satisfy national standards and uniform practices, and the Project would be required to comply with all applicable components of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Policy CE-5.2: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and encourage new development to provide walkways
between and through developments.

Consistent. The Project incorporates trails and sidewalks that would accommodate non-vehicular access within the
Project site, including a proposed connection for the
Skyline Ridge Trail at Foothill Parkway, which would provide non-vehicular access to existing pedestrian facilities off site.

Policy CE-5.3: Provide for safe accessibility to and use of pedestrian facilities by people with disabilities to
implement accessibility requirements under the American with Disabilities Act.

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable components of the ADA, including all design elements at the Project’s proposed parks.

Policy CE-5.4: Develop bicycle routes in accordance with the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan and implement
other elements of that plan.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to develop bicycle trails in
accordance with the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan,

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
while Figure 3 of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan shows that the only planned bicycle facilities in the Project area is a Class II Trail along Foothill Parkway, which already is in place, and a Class I bike trail along the developed portions of Skyline Drive (east of the Project site), which also already is in place. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to accommodate bicycle traffic along internal
Project roadways and within portions of the Project’s
proposed trail system.

Policy CE-5.5: Develop and maintain a bikeway system that provides connections to routes of neighboring jurisdictions and regional bikeways.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to develop and maintain a
bikeway system providing connections to bikeways and
surrounding jurisdictions, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to accommodate bicycle traffic along internal Project
roadways and within portions of the Project’s proposed
trail system.

Policy CE-5.6: Encourage new and existing development to provide accessible and secure areas for bicycle storage.

Provide bicycle racks or storage facilities at public facilities and require bicycle parking, storage, and other support facilities as part of new office and retail developments.

Consistent. The public park proposed as part of the Project would be improved to include a bike track, bike service station, and bike racks, in conformance with this policy.

Policy CE-5.7: Use easements and/or rights-or-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads, and streets wherever possible for bikeways and equestrian and hiking trails.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers regarding existing public use corridors that may be suitable for trail development, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy CE-5.8: Improve bicycling and pedestrian safety by minimizing conflict points (e.g., bicycle and vehicle
crossings) with motorized traffic, separating bike routes and truck routes where possible, or adding and improving existing facilities with buffers/barriers to separate bikes from vehicle lanes.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to provide for bicycle safety by providing two raised bike crossings within the road within the public park, which have been designed to provide safe trail crossings for cyclists. Additionally, separate trails for hikers and bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway within the public park.

Policy CE-5.9: Coordinate with the Riverside County
General Plan and the Santa Ana River Trails Plan to create an uninterrupted Class I bicycle route through Corona that connects to the Santa Ana River Trail in surrounding cities.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers related to interagency
coordination, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy CE-5.10: Encourage and support safe bicycle riding on City streets. Provide bicycle safety and education
programs through public outreach. Support future bikeway designs that minimize bicycle conflicts with vehicles,
separate bikeways from vehicles where possible, and lower bicycle level of stress.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-5.9 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to promote bicycle safety
through public outreach, and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project has been designed to provide for bicycle safety by providing two raised bike crossings within the road within the public park, which have been designed to provide safe trail crossings for
cyclists. Additionally, separate trails for hikers and
bicyclists are proposed along each side of the roadway
within the public park.

Goal CE-6 and Policies CE-6.1 through CE-6.7 Not Applicable. Goal CE-6 and Policies CE-6.1 through CEPage 3446 of 3613

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency

6.7 provide direction to City staff and decision makers related to land uses associated with goods movement (e.g., warehouse developments), and no such uses are proposed
as part of the Project.

Goal CE-7: Provide an adequate supply of convenient
parking for all developments in the City in a manner that is consistent with the goals of managing transportation
demand.

Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to comply
with the City of Corona's parking requirements.

Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed residential units would include a two-car garage, in
accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of
spaces required), which mandates two covered parking
spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling. Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public
parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks.

Therefore, the proposed Project would fully comply the
City of Corona parking requirements.

Policy CE-7.1: Require new developments to provide
adequate off-street parking in compliance with Corona
Municipal Code Chapter 17-76.

Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to comply
with the City of Corona's parking requirements.

Specifically, it is anticipated that each of the proposed residential units would include a two-car garage, in
accordance with CMC Section 17.76.030 (Number of
spaces required), which mandates two covered parking
spaces within an enclosed garage for each single-family dwelling. Although it is anticipated that off-street parking would be accommodated at the Project’s proposed public
parks, CMC Section 17.76.030 does not specify a minimum number of required parking spaces for public parks.

Therefore, the proposed Project would fully comply the
City of Corona parking requirements.

Policy CE-7.2: Allow for the provision of adequate parking that is required to meet the needs of residential uses, commerce, and other land uses and is sensitive to the
context and broader transportation goals of the City.

Consistent. As noted above, the Project has been designed to meet or exceed the City’s minimum required number of off-street parking spaces.

Policy CE-7.3: Encourage employers to include strategic parking provisions in new developments, where feasible, to encourage the use of transit and other modes of travel rather than single-occupancy autos.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.3 relates to employmentgenerating land uses, while the Project includes only residential and park uses and does not include any
employment-related land uses.

Policy CE-7.4: Accommodate joint use of parking facilities as part of an area plan or site plan, based on the peak parking demands of permitted uses in the planning area.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to accommodate joint use of
parking areas, and is unrelated to the proposed Project, which does not include any proposed shared parking areas.

Policy CE-7.5: Encourage the use of shared parking
arrangements in areas with parking shortfalls, downtown and in appropriate mixed-use projects, and along the Sixth Street Mixed Use Boulevard corridor.

Not Applicable. Policy CE-7.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to accommodate joint use of
parking areas, particularly within the downtown area and in mixed-use developments, and is unrelated to the
proposed Project, which is not located in the downtown

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
area and does not consist of a mixed-use development.

2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? or
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
§ 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
Tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? or • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, went into effect on July 1, 2015, and added the above-listed thresholds to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines on June 3, 2016.

The SHP EIR did not specifically evaluate the issue of Tribal Cultural Resources. Notwithstanding, the SHP EIR included an extensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. As previously indicated herein in Subsection 2.4f), the SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, although the SHP EIR did identify potential impacts to previously-undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources and imposed Mitigation Measure CR-1 to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. In addition, SHP EIR Subsection 4.D, Cultural Resources, documented the tribal consultation efforts that occurred in conformance with Senate Bill (SB) 18. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.D-5 to 4.D-6) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. AB 52 requires tribal consultation for certain development projects and applies only to projects that have a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. As demonstrated by the analysis herein, the proposed Project is fully within the scope of analysis of the SHP EIR, and the Project would not trigger any of the conditions described in § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. As such, an Addendum to the SHP EIR has been prepared for the Project pursuant to § 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the Project would not require a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. Therefore, the provisions of AB 52 are not applicable to the Project.

Although AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed Project, the Project would not result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, were fully evaluated by the SHP EIR, and an updated analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources is provided herein in Subsection f). Consistent with the Project evaluated in the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SHP Mitigation Measure CR-1, which the SHP EIR concluded would reduce impacts to previously-undiscovered archaeological resources to below a level of significance. As such, with mitigation the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
Would the Project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making
this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider
whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section
10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of
Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan and
municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that the SHP would result in on-site and off-site wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR found that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level.

Further, the SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that impacts regarding wastewater would be less than significant with mitigation. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-39 to 4.N-44) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Wastewater treatment services for the proposed Project would be provided by the City of Corona Utilities Department. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 (WWTP 1), located at 2205 Railroad Street, between Klug Circle and Citation Circle, or approximately 2.6 miles north of the Project site. The plant operates under and complies with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge and Producer/User Reclamation Requirements Order No. 01-55, NPDES No. CA80000383. Because all wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by proposed sewer lines and sewer mains to WWTP 1, and because WWTP 1 operates under an approved NPDES permit, it can be concluded that the Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Corona, 2021, p. 6- 14)
According to the EIR prepared for the City’s 2020 General Plan Update, WWTP 1 is permitted to treat up to 11.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has an anticipated future treatment capacity of 14.5 MGD (Corona, 2019, Table 5.19-1). As noted by the SHP EIR, the City of Corona Sewer Master Plan estimated that the future development on the Project site would produce approximately 278,050 gpd of wastewater requiring treatment, which the SHP EIR noted was 3.5 times more than the average flows projected for the Approved Project of 78,840 gpd. Using the same wastewater generation factor of 270 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit, the Project’s proposed 276 dwelling units would generate approximately 74,520 gpd requiring treatment, which represents only 26.8% of the total amount of wastewater generation assumed for the site by the City’s Sewer Master Plan and 5.5% less than the amount of wastewater generation assumed for the site by the SHP EIR.

Accordingly, because the proposed Project would generate substantially less wastewater requiring treatment as compared to what is accounted for by the City’s Sewer Master Plan, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. It also can be concluded that the proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

The proposed Project would require the construction of on-site 8-inch sewer mains, service laterals and manholes, which would connect to existing sewer lines located within improved rights-of-way for Mabey Canyon Road and Border Avenue. However, physical impacts associated with construction of the Project, including the Project’s onand off-site sewer improvements, have been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). There are no components of the Projects’ proposed sewer improvements that would result in significant environmental effects that have not already been addressed herein and/or in the SHP EIR. Additionally, prior to recordation of Final Maps for the Project, the City of Corona would require a final wastewater study to confirm the extent of the impact to the City’s existing wastewater system, and to verify the improvements anticipated as part of the Project. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that Implementation of the SHP could require or result in the construction of new onsite and off-site water facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR found that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level. Further, the SHP EIR found that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the SHP from existing and proposed entitlements and resources. Thus, impacts regarding water supply and water infrastructure were determined by the SHP EIR to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-34 to 4.N-39)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would be provided potable and recycled water service by the City of Corona Utilities Department. As part of the Project, a series of water and recycled water lines are proposed on site, along with a proposed 0.40 million gallon reservoir proposed in the western portions of the site. The proposed on-site water lines would connect to existing water lines available within Foothill Parkway and Trudy Way. However, the physical environmental effects associated with the construction of the on-site water infrastructure and associated connections to existing facilities has been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. Where significant impacts have been identified, either the mitigation measures from the SHP EIR would continue to apply and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, or new or modified mitigation measures have been added to further ensure impacts to the environment would be less than significant. There are no components of the Project’s proposed water

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

system that have the potential to result in environmental effects not already addressed herein. Therefore, impacts associated with the installation of the Project’s proposed water and recycled water lines would be less than significant.

With respect to water supply, the City of Corona adopted its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in June 2021, and after the SHP EIR was certified in 2017. The City’s UWMP demonstrates that the City would have sufficient water supplies through at least 2045, including during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive dry years. The UWMP accounts for an increase in water demand within the City that is proportionate to the City’s anticipated population growth. Based on future population growth estimates contained in Connect SoCal, the City of Corona had a population of approximately 155,600 persons in 2019 and approximately 47,100 households. The number of households within the City is expected to increase by 5,800 households by 2050, representing an increase in the City’s population of approximately 19,024 persons (5,800 households x 3.28 persons/household = 19,024 persons). Thus, the Project’s anticipated 905 residents would represent only 0.65% of the anticipated population growth within the City through 2050. (SCAG, 2024, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Table 13; USCB, 2024) Additionally, the Project evaluated herein represents Revision No. 1 to the approved TTM 36544, and the proposed Project includes 16 fewer dwelling units than the Approved Project that was evaluated in the SHP EIR; thus, it can be concluded that the Project’s overall water demand would be less than what was evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR for the Project site. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed to serve the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, the SHP EIR determined that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of project design features would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less-than-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-44 to 4.N-47)
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would entail the construction of extended detention basins on site as well as catch basins, inlets, and storm drain lines that would be constructed within the proposed roadways on site. However, physical environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed Project are evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject headings. Consistent with the findings of the SHP EIR, the analysis herein demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related impacts, including impacts associated with the construction of the Project’s on-site drainage system, would be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). There are no components of the Project’s proposed drainage system improvements that would result in impacts to the environment not already addressed

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

herein. Accordingly, and also consistent with the conclusion reached by the SHP EIR, impacts due to the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities on site would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the SHP area. Further, the SHP EIR found that the SHP would comply with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. The SHP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-3 through UTIL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a lessthan-significant level. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-47 to 4.N-48) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings from the SHP EIR, solid waste collection services for the proposed Project would be provided by Waste Management of the Inland Empire (WMIE). Solid waste generated by the Project ultimately would be disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and/or Badlands Landfill. A summary of these landfills is provided below:
• The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Corona and Cajalco Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The El Sobrante Landfill has a total disposal capacity of approximately 209.9 million cubic yards and can receive up to 70,000 tons per week (tpw) of refuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in November 2024 the El Sobrante Landfill received approximately 62,605.9 tpw of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024a) • The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (State Route 79), south of Interstate 10 and north of Highway 74. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is permitted to receive 5,000 tons per day (tpd) of municipal solid waste for disposal and 500 tpd for beneficial reuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in October 2024 the Lamb Canyon Landfill received approximately 1,720.6 tpd of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024b) • The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue and accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The Badlands Landfill currently is permitted to receive 5,000 tpd of municipal solid waste for disposal and 300 tpd for beneficial reuse. According to data available from CalRecycle, in December 2024 the Badlands Landfill received approximately 2,427.9 tpd of solid waste requiring disposal. (CalRecycle, 2024c)
Using the solid waste generation rate identified by the SHP EIR of 12.23 pounds per household per day, the Project’s proposed 276 dwelling units would generate approximately 3,375.48 pounds per day (lbs/day) or approximately 1.69 tpd. As noted above, based on data available from CalRecycle, the El Sobrante Landfill has a excess weekly capacity of approximately 7,394.1 tons per week (tpw), the Lamb Canyon Landfill has an excess daily capacity of approximately 3,279.4 tpd, and the Badlands Landfill has an excess daily capacity of approximately 2,572.1 tpd. The Project’s anticipated 1.69 tpd (11.81 tpw) of solid waste requiring disposal would represent 0.16%

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

of the excess weekly available capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill (11.81 tpw ÷ 7,394.1 tpw x 100 = 0.1598%), the Project’s 1.69 tpd would represent only 0.05% of the excess daily capacity available at the Lamb Canyon Landfill (1.69 tpd ÷ 3,279.4 tpd x 100 = 0.0515%), and the Project’s 1.69 tpd would represent only 0.66% of the excess daily capacity available at the Badlands Landfill (1.69 tpd ÷ 2,572.1 tpd x 100 = 0.0657%). Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities for the El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill, and Badlands Landfill, it is anticipated that these regional facilities would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project. As such, the Project’s impacts due to solid waste would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.
h) Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact. The SHP EIR found that implementation of the SHP would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and the Corona Municipal Code). This impact was concluded by the SHP EIR to be less than significant. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.N-48 to 4.N-51) EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR was certified in 2017.

However, subsequent to certification of the SHP EIR, the City of Corona City Council adopted an update to the City’s General Plan in 2020, with the most recent amendment to the General Plan occurring in April 2024.

Accordingly, Table 54, Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Utilities and Service Systems, provides an updated analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2020 General Plan policies related to utilities and service systems. As indicated in Table 54, the Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to utilities and service systems.

In addition, all improvements proposed as part of the Project would fully comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with General Plan goals and policies related to utilities and service systems and impacts due to a conflict with the CMC would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR.

Table 54 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Utilities and Service Systems Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal IU-1: Secure water supply, water treatment,
distribution, pumping, and storage systems that meet the current and projected future daily and peak water
demands of Corona in an equitable, efficient, and
sustainable manner.

Not Applicable. Goal IU-1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to secure water supply, water
treatment, distribution, pumping, and storage systems that meet the current and projected future daily and peak
water demands of Corona, and is unrelated to the
proposed Project.

Policy IU-1.1: Review, evaluate, and update the City’s
Urban Water Management Plan and related capital
improvement programs on a regular basis in order to
Not Applicable. Policy IU-1.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers to review, evaluate, and update the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and related

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
maintain plans for expansion and improvement of
distribution and storage facilities.
capital improvement programs on a regular basis, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-1.2: Evaluate the adequacy of water
infrastructure in areas where intensification of land use is anticipated; coordinate capital improvements planning for all municipal water service infrastructure with the
direction, extent, and timing of growth.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, as part of their review of the Project the City of Corona evaluated whether the Project would be served by adequate water
infrastructure, and determined that with the Project’s
proposed 2.5-million gallon Zone 5 reservoir within the central portion of the Project site, the Project would be served by adequate water infrastructure.

Policy IU-1.3: Construct, upgrade, maintain, and expand water supply, distribution, pumping, storage, and
treatment facilities in the Urban Water Management Plan and/or as required to meet state and federal standards.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-1.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers related to the implementation of the City’s UWMP, and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-1.4: Designate, preserve, and acquire land, if necessary, for siting future water supply, storage, and distribution facilities in conformity with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element.

Consistent. In conformance with this policy, the Project would dedicate to the City Lot “M” of proposed TTM
36544R1 for the proposed 2.5-million gallon water
reservoir proposed on site for Zone 5. In addition, Lot “P” of proposed TTM 3544R1 would be dedicated to the City
and would accommodate a proposed 0.6-million-gallon
reservoir for Zone 6A. No other lands within the Project site require dedication for water supply, storage, or
distribution, beyond the Project’s proposed on-site water lines, all of which would occur within the public right-ofway.

Policy IU-1.5: As a condition of permit approval, require adequate water supply, distribution, pumping, storage, and treatment facilities to be operational prior to the issuance of building permits.

Consistent. As demonstrated herein under the analysis of Threshold d), above, there would be sufficient water
supplies available to serve the proposed Project through the 2045 planning horizon.

Policy IU-1.6: Achieve and maintain compliance with all federal, state, and local regulatory standards for drinking water to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Corona.

Consistent. All Project-related water improvements would conform to all applicable federal, State, and local
regulatory standards.

Policy IU-1.7: Require all new development to be served from an approved domestic water supply to protect the
health and safety of the public and groundwater supplies.

Consistent. In conformance with this policy, the Project would be provided potable and recycled water by the City of Corona Utilities Department, and no groundwater
extraction is proposed as part of the Project.

Policy IU-1.8: Through engineering design, construction practices, and enforcement of water regulatory standards, ensure that existing and new land uses and development
do not degrade the City’s surface waters and groundwater supplies.

Consistent. The analysis provided herein in Subsections

2.10 and 2.18 demonstrates that the proposed Project
would not degrade the City’s surface waters or
groundwater supplies.

Policy IU-1.9: Require the costs of improvements to the water supply transmission, distribution, pumping, storage, and treatment facilities necessitated by new development be equitably borne by beneficiaries, either through the payment of fees, or construction of the improvements.

Consistent. The Project Applicant would bear the cost of all on- and off-site water improvements proposed as part of the Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal IU-2: Minimize water consumption and urban runoff
generation through site design, the use of water
conservation systems, and other techniques.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources.

Policy IU-2.1: Continue to implement the City’s water
conservation and reuse efforts; review these programs
regularly, and modify them as appropriate and feasible.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-2.2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote use of water-conserving devices and practices in new construction, major
alterations and additions to existing buildings, and
retrofitting of irrigation systems where feasible.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-2.3: Require incorporation of best available
technologies for water conservation, internally and
externally, in new construction and associated site design.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources.

Policy IU-2.4: Expand the recycled water program to
provide water for landscaped medians and other
appropriate open spaces along SR-91 and I-15, in
coordination with Caltrans when feasible.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-2.5: Require that sewer flows be minimized in existing and future developments through water
conservation and recycling efforts.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with the incumbent Title 24 regulations,
which includes a number of requirements that would serve to minimize the Project’s consumption of water resources, including water usage associated with the Project’s sewer flows.

Policy IU-2.6: Encourage the use of recycled water by
industrial, commercial, and institutional users through the use of incentives such as differential pricing; require recycled water use for landscaped irrigation, grading, and other noncontact uses in new projects, where feasible.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to
accommodate recycled water lines throughout the
development to provide for irrigation of landscaping within common areas and along public roadways on site.

Policy IU-2.7: Require the use of recycled water for
landscaped irrigation, grading, and other noncontact uses in new developments, parks, golf courses, sports fields, and comparable uses, where feasible.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to
accommodate recycled water lines throughout the
development to provide for irrigation of landscaping within common areas and along public roadways on site.

Policy IU-2.8: Continue to provide and support public
educational efforts to residents, business, and students regarding the importance of water conservation and
recycled water use.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-2.8 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-2.9: Require that grading plans be designed and implemented to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing
rainwater onsite and storing on a temporary, short-term basis to facilitate groundwater recharge rather than relying solely on community drainage facilities.

Consistent. The Project’s drainage system has been
designed to include extended detention basins, which
would allow for infiltration into site soils.

Policy IU-2.10: Require the use of rainwater capture and storage facilities, techniques, and improvements in
Consistent. The Project’s drainage system has been
designed to include extended detention basins, and the

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
residential and nonresidential developments to further
objectives for water conservation.

Project would be served with recycled water resources. In addition, the Project includes a 2.5-million gallon water reservoir to ensure adequate water pressure in the local area.

Goal IU-3: A secure sewer collection and treatment system that meets current and projected future daily and peak
load demands in Corona and protects public health and
the environment in an efficient, equitable, and sustainable manner.

Consistent. All sewer improvements proposed as part of
the Project would be in full compliance with all applicable City of Corona requirements, including the requirements specified in the CMC.

Policy IU-3.1: Review, evaluate, and update the City’s
Sewer Master Plan and related capital improvement
programs on a regular basis to plan for expansion and
improvement of conveyance, storage, and treatment
facilities.

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

Policy IU-3.2: Evaluate sewer infrastructure in areas where intensification of land use is anticipated to occur;
coordinate capital improvements planning for service
infrastructure with the direction, extent, and timing of growth.

Consistent. As part of their review of the proposed
Project, the City of Corona determined that the Project’s proposed sewer improvements would be adequate to
accommodate the Project’s wastewater.

Policy IU-3.3: Build, upgrade, maintain, and expand existing sewer collection and treatment facilities where existing systems are deficient in accordance with the Sewer Master Plan and state and federal standards.

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

Policy IU-3.4: Require that new development be connected to the municipal sewer system and ensure that adequate
capacity is available for the treatment of generated sewer flows and safe disposal of sludge.

Consistent. The Project would be connected to the City’s sewer system, and the analysis presented herein under
Threshold e) demonstrates that there would be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity at WWTP 1 to treat the
Project’s sewer flows.

Policy IU-3.5: As a condition of approval, require that all new development submit a sewer analysis to the
satisfaction of the City of Corona prior to the issuance of building permits.

Consistent. In conformance with this policy, a Preliminary Sewer Report was prepared for the Project by KWC
Engineers, which demonstrates that with the Project’s
proposed sewer improvements, there would be adequate
downstream capacity to convey the Project’s sewer flows to WWTP 1.

Policy IU-3.6: Restrict and prioritize sewer connections, if necessary, to comply with available treatment capacity.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and there would be sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity available to accommodate the Project’s sewer flows.

Policy IU-3.7: Ensure that sewer connection fees and
charges are reviewed annually and are sufficient to fully fund and support the construction, improvement, and
rehabilitation of sewer facilities.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

Policy IU-3.8: Require that new development be connected to the City’s sewer system.

Consistent. The proposed Project would connect to the
City’s sanitary sewer system, as required by this policy.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy IU-3.9: Continue to require all applicable
industries/businesses to obtain sewer discharge permits from the City and to comply with the City's Waste
Discharge Pretreatment and Source Control Program.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and the Project does not include any proposed
industrial or business land uses.

Policy IU-3.10: Continue to implement, as appropriate, the requirements of the NPDES and SCAQMD regulations,
including requiring the use of Best Management Practices by businesses in the City.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-3.10 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s NPDES permit and all applicable SCAQMD regulations.

Goal IU-4: Adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for storm drainage and storage control
facilities to support permitted land uses and protect the health and safety of the public and environment.

Consistent. The Project would include the construction of an on-site drainage system that includes catch basins,
storm drain lines, and extended detention basins, which would adequately attenuate storm drainage flows to below the peak flows that occur under existing conditions.

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

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.1 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

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

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

Consistent. The Project would include the construction of an on-site drainage system that includes catch basins,
storm drain lines, and extended detention basins, which would adequately attenuate storm drainage flows to below the peak flows that occur under existing conditions.

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

As necessary, require the reservation of rights-of-way and easements for designated water-related infrastructure
facilities as a condition of project approval.

Consistent. All of the Project’s proposed extended
detention basins would be conveyed to the City of Corona for long-term maintenance through the City’s Communities Facilities District (CFD).

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

Consistent. As part of their review of the Project, City of Corona staff reviewed the Project’s proposed drainage plan and WQMP and determined that the Project’s proposed
drainage system would be adequate to address the
Project’s stormwater conveyance.

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

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project, and the Project site is not located within the City’s SOI.

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

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with all City regulatory stormwater quality measures.

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

Consistent. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins, are
adequate to ensure that runoff from the Project does not degrade the quality of the City’s surface waters,
groundwater system, and other sensitive environmental
areas.

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

Consistent. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins, are
adequate to ensure that runoff from the Project does not degrade or indirectly contribute to the degradation of
surface waters or the groundwater system.

Policy IU-5.2: Reduce pollutant loading through passive treatment systems such as vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and infiltration/ sedimentation areas in suitable open space areas, overland flow channels, and landscaping adjacent to parking lots and streets.

Consistent. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins and
proposed landscaped areas, would ensure that the Project does not result in polluted runoff.

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

Consistent. The Project has been designed to minimize the amount of impervious area while maximizing the amount
of natural open space accommodated on site.

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

Consistent. The analysis of Project impacts to hydrology and water quality presented herein in Subsection 2.10
demonstrates that the Project’s proposed drainage system, including the proposed extended detention basins and
proposed landscaped areas, would not result in
environmental degradation and would not adversely affect wetlands or other sensitive environments with
implementation of the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures (as
modified/supplemented herein).

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

Not Applicable. Due to the Project site’s steep topography and shallow depth to bedrock, and due to the need to
preserve sensitive biological habitats within the Project’s proposed open space areas, it would not be feasible for the Project to capture and re-use stormwater runoff
generated on the Project site.

Policy IU-5.6: Implement environmentally and
economically efficient stormwater treatment systems,
Consistent. The Project includes landscaped areas and
proposed extended detention basins, which would be
environmentally and economically efficient.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
whenever practical (such as artificial marshland sewer
treatment).

Policy IU-5.7: Require developers to obtain a NPDES permit prior to moving construction equipment onto a
development site. The NPDES permit shall be retained at the construction site throughout the construction period, and a copy shall be filed with the City Engineer.

Consistent. The Project Applicant would be required to
obtain an NPDES permit prior to commencement of
grading on site.

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

Not Applicable. Policy IU-4.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the applicable NPDES permit.

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

Consistent. The Project’s proposed drainage system has
been designed to minimize damage to environmentally
sensitive areas, including the Project’s proposed on-site open space areas.

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

Consistent. All future Project residents would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations with respect to the handling, storage, and
disposal of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances.

Goal IU-6: Maintain solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services, programs, and regulations in accordance with California mandates.

Not Applicable. Goal IU-6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-6.1: Provide an adequate and orderly system for collection and recycling or disposal of solid waste for new and existing development in the City and sphere of
influence.

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

Policy IU-6.2: Monitor the adequacy of solid waste
collection and recycling, including organic and electronic waste, for commercial, industrial, and residential
developments for compliance with state law.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.2 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-6.3: Coordinate with Riverside County to ensure the City’s continued use of the El Sobrante Landfill and adherence to county, state, and federal environmental
regulations and local priorities.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.3 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-6.4: Encourage and support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce the solid waste stream;
implement a waste reduction and recycling program within all City offices and facilities.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.4 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-6.5: Continue to operate and expand source
reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting efforts to
continue to reduce waste generation citywide and achieve state-mandated waste diversion goals.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.5 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Policy IU-6.6: Continue and enhance public educational
programs promoting reuse, recycling, composting, and the safe disposal of waste.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.6 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Policy IU-6.7: Continue to work with providers and
businesses to educate the community and to provide
household hazardous material, used oil, and electronic
waste collection for the community.

Not Applicable. Policy IU-6.7 provides direction to City staff and decision makers and is unrelated to the proposed
Project.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the SHP EIR shall apply, as modified/supplemented below, in order to reduce the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. Revisions/additions to the SHP EIR Mitigation Measures are shown below in strikeout/underline format. The revisions to the SHP EIR mitigation measure were incorporated in order to reflect current mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources, and reflect more stringent requirements as compared to the mitigation measures included in the SHP EIR.

UTIL-1 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP Corona Utilities Department water connection fees as set forth in Section 13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC.

UTIL-2 Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP Corona Utilities Department sewer connection fees as set forth in Section

13.08.600 of the CMC.

UTIL-3 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Municipal Operations Department prior to approval of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

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

UTIL-5 Waste Diversion. The project Applicant shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City of Corona Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. The City shall ensure that the project proponent implements the waste diversion plan objectives.

These requirements shall be specified in the final architectural plans to be approved by the City of Corona Planning and Building Agency prior to issuance of building permits.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2.19 Wildfire
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impactsto the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Skyline Heights Project EIR Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Thresholds

2.19.a. through d. were added to the State CEQA Guidelines in 2018, while the SHP EIR was certified by the City of Corona City Council on February 1, 2017. Accordingly, at the time the SHP EIR was certified, Thresholds 2.19.a. through d. were not included as part of Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines and thus were not evaluated by the SHP EIR as a separate environmental issue area. Notwithstanding, the SHP EIR included an extensive analysis of potential impacts due to wildfire hazards within SHP EIR Subsection 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As evaluated under Threshold h. of SHP EIR Subsection 4.G, the SHP EIR found that with implementation of the fuel modification plan the SHP project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Thus, the SHP EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur with regard to wildland fires with implementation of applicable project design features and Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2. (Corona, 2015, pp. 4.G-15 to 4.G-17)
a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted by the EIR prepared for the City’s 2020 General Plan Update, the City of Corona has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The LHMP identifies the City’s hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies, with a focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses. However, neither the LHMP nor the EOP identify any measures that would be affected by the proposed Project, and there are no components of the proposed Project with the potential to conflict with the LHMP or EOP. Accordingly, Project impacts due to a conflict with an adopted emergency response plan would be less than significant.

In addition, the Project site is located at the western end of the City of Corona, with the Cleveland National Forest abutting the majority of the Project site on the west/southwest. The Project site does not include any existing evacuation routes under existing conditions, and at buildout the Project would not serve as an evacuation route with exception of Project residents/visitors. There are no components of the proposed Project that would interfere with emergency access routes in the local area, such as Foothill Parkway or SR-91. As such, Project impacts due to a conflict with local emergency evacuation routes would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified in the SHP EIR. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously noted, a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared for the Project by Dudek. This report is titled, “Fire Protection Plan, Skyline Heights Residential Project (Tract 36544),” is dated April 2024, and is included as Technical Appendix K (Dudek, 2025).

The Project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and is covered with a mixture of sage scrub, grasslands, and riparian habitats (L&L, 2024, Table 10; Corona, 2020). Under existing conditions, a worst-case fire under gusty Santa Ana winds and low fuel moistures adjacent to the Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate- to- high intensity through the non-maintained surface shrub and chaparral dominated fuels in the adjacent open space areas directly to the west and or south of the Project site. Worst-case fire behavior under peak weather conditions is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the south/southeast during a fall, extreme Santa Ana wind event. Under such conditions, expected surface flame lengths are expected to reach up to approximately 23 feet under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 44 feet with wind gusts up to 50+ mph). Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach approximately 5,480 British Thermal Units (BTU)/feet/second under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 11,681 BTU/feet/second with wind gusts up to 50+ mph), fast spread rates up to 1.7 mph under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 6.7 mph with wind gusts up to 50+ mph), and could have a spotting distance up to 0.7 miles under 16 mph sustained winds (up to approximately 2.4 miles away with wind gusts up to 50+ mph). Thus, under existing conditions the Project site is highly susceptible to wildland fire hazards. (Dudek, 2025, p. 39)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Although the Project site is susceptible to wildland fire hazards, the Project has been designed to be ignition resistant and to include professionally managed and maintained fire protection components, modern fire code compliant safety features, and specific measures provided where ignitions are most likely to occur (such as roadways). Specifically, and as more fully described in Subsection 5.4.1 of the Project’s FPP, the Project would be required to implement Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) treatments, which would include four separate zones based on the distance from on-site structures. These FMZ treatments are described below and are depicted on Figure 13, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan. (Dudek, 2025, pp. 69-72) • Zone 0: Ember Resistant Zone – Non-Combustible (from exterior structure walls to 5 feet). The EmberResistant Zone has been proven to be the most important defensible space zone for protecting a structure against a wildfire and would be used as an alternative materials and methods (AM&M) of construction for the proposed Project. When required, Zone 0 would consist of the immediate area surrounding the perimeter of all structures and would be measured from the exterior wall of the structure outward to 5- feet (horizontal) and falls within the irrigated Zone A FMZ. The ember-resistant zone is designed to keep fire or embers from igniting materials that can spread the fire to individual homes. This zone generally consists of hardscaping and other non-combustible elements, with no vegetation allowed within this zone. • Zone A: Setback Irrigates Zone (Zone – to 30 feet from structures). The purpose of the setback zone is to provide a defensible space for fire suppression forces and to protect structures from radiant heat and convective heat. No combustible construction would be allowed within the 30-foot setback zone (Zone A). This zone is to be located on a level graded area, at the top or base of slope and immediately adjacent to the protected development. This zone generally would consist of fire-resistant landscaping that is automatically irrigated, with no flammable vegetation, dead plants, non-irrigated grass, or weeds. • Zone B: Irrigated Zone (30 feet to 100 feet from structures). This portion of fuel modification would consist of irrigated landscaping. These irrigated zones are typically a minimum of 50 feet in width, but has been increased to 70 feet for this Project as an effort to have a greater reduction in flame lengths, which would reduce the chance of ignition of any structures. Zone B would be cleared of all combustible plant species, irrigated, and planted with plants from the Corona Fire Department (CFD)-approved FireResistant Plant List that would be maintained at a height not to exceed 24 inches. Exceptions to save desirable species may be submitted for approval by the CFD on a site-specific basis. As in Zone A, combustible construction is not allowed in Zone B.
• Zone C: Thinning Zone (100 to 170 feet from structures). Zone C would be 70 feet in depth and would require 50% thinning and removal of all dead and dying and undesirable species. Zone C typically is only 50 feet in depth, but has been increased to 70 feet in order to further ensure future structures on site are protected from wildland fire hazards. The Project’s FPP calls for the code-complying minimum of 170 feet while including the code-exceeding features of increased irrigation and thinning. Thinning zones would be utilized to reduce the fuel load of a wildland area adjacent to the structure(s), thereby reducing the radiant and convective heat of wildland fires.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Figure 13 Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan
(Dudek, 2025, Figure 10)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

In addition to the FMZs surrounding structures, the Project’s FPP also includes a variety of recommendations related to sitewide landscape management. These recommendations include the following: (Dudek, 2025, pp. 73- 74)
• Roadside-Adjacent/Fire Access Road Defensible Space Zone. The roadside-adjacent defensible space zone would occur in the general locations depicted on Figure 13 and would extend a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of any public or private roadway that may be used as access for fire-fighting apparatus or resources. Flammable growth would be cleared and removed for a minimum of 10 feet on each side of the access roads. Additional clearance up to 50 feet may be required upon inspection per the Roadside Protection Zone (RPZ) distinction in the CFD Vegetation Management Guideline for New Construction Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Program (VMG). These treatments would be required for all areas within the Project site.
• Special Maintenance Areas (SMAs). In accordance with the VMG, slopes and commonly owned areas interior from the community perimeter may be designated as SMAs with specific vegetation management requirements. These areas must be included in Planting Plans and would be reviewed by the CFD. If, upon review, an interior area is determined to contribute to an increased wildfire risk, the first 100 feet of the interior area, measured from the structure out, would be declared an SMA and be subject to the same defensible space requirements as the FMZs. These areas must be irrigated and with a maximum width of 100 feet beginning at the property lines of privately owned lots. SMAs would have the same plant species restrictions and requirements described for FMZs (as listed in Appendix E to the Project’s FPP). • Horizontal Spacing/Vertical Separation in FMZs. Continuity of fuels is a significant contributing factor to the rate of spread of fire on a landscape. Plant communities with little spacing and higher continuity support much higher rates of spread while plant communities with greater spacing and less continuity do not support as high of rates of spread. For this reason, the VMG lays out specific spacing guidelines for ground cover, shrubs, and trees within the FMZs.
• FMZ Plant Requirements. The following requirements are provided for fuel modification zones. All landscaping shall be maintained by the Property Manager/HOA representative, and/or homeowner.

Plants used in the fuel modification areas or landscapes would include drought-tolerant, fire-resistive trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The planting list and spacing would require review and approval by CFD, based on submitted landscape plans. The plantings would be consistent with the CFD/Riverside County Fuel Modification Zone Friendly Plant List (Appendix F to the Project’s FPP). The list intends to provide examples of plants that are less prone to ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and combustible structures during a wildfire. Up to 10 additional plant species can be added to the landscape plant material palette with approval from CFD. The same selection requirements would apply to SMAs and RPZs. • Prohibited Plants. Certain plants are considered prohibited in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly flammable or invasive. These characteristics can be physical (structure promotes ignition or combustible) or chemical (volatile chemicals increase flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Undesirable and Invasive Plant Species list (refer to Appendix E to the Project’s FPP) are unacceptable from a fire safety or ecological standpoint and shall not be planted

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

or allowed to establish opportunistically within the FMZs or landscape areas. The same selection restrictions would apply to SMAs and RPZs.
• Fire Walls. Because of property boundary constraints, a small portion on the eastern side of Planning Area 2 adjacent to the “Not A Part” area of the Project (i.e., TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 28 through 32), as well as in the southeast portion of Planning Area 3 (i.e., TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 1 and 2), are unable to achieve a minimum 100 feet of on-site fuel modification. To mitigate for the reduced FMZ, a 6-foot-tall noncombustible Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) fire wall would be constructed in multiple locations along the property boundary line around TTM 36544R1 Lot Nos. 1 through 14, 28 through 32, 76 through 78, 85 through 97, 111 through 115, 121, 122, and 127 through 144 where the full 100 feet of onsite fuel modification cannot be achieved. Figure 13 shows the portions of the site that would require CMU fire walls. The fire walls would be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls.

In summary, the requirements and recommendations set forth in the Project’s FPP indicate how the Project would conform with required fire and building codes. The recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP have also been designed specifically for the proposed construction of structures within areas designated as VHFHSZ. When properly implemented on an ongoing basis, the fire protection strategies proposed in the Project’s FPP would significantly reduce the potential fire threat to vegetation on the community and its structures, as well as assist CFD in responding to emergencies within the Project site. The fire protection system provided for the Project site includes a redundant layering of code-compliant, fire-resistant construction materials and methods that have been shown through post-fire damage assessments to perform extremely well against wildfire and ember storm conditions. To address areas where the Project is unable to meet the minimum Fire Code standards due to site constraints, code-exceeding measures have been suggested to meet the intent of the provisions of the Fire Code.

The proposed Project would include up to 170-foot-wide fuel modification zones that would be in excess of code requirements, along with ignition resistant construction that would exceed the requirements of one of the most restrictive fire and building codes in the country. The use of these methods and materials along with ongoing maintenance would result in a community that would be highly defensible with minimal firefighting resource demands. Projects occurring within fire hazard severity zones and wildland urban interface areas with higher potential fire hazards represent lower overall fire safety risk when the buildings and community are built to ignition resistant levels as required by CFD. Conversely, older communities that do not include the ignition resistant strategies may occur in a location that represents lower potential fire hazards outside of a fire hazard severity zone or wildland urban interface, but may actually be at higher overall fire risk due to the vulnerabilities inherent in their construction. (Dudek, 2025, p. 94)
Modern infrastructure would be provided, and all structures are required to include interior, automatic residential fire sprinkler systems consistent with the City’s regulatory standards and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard No. 13-D. The Project’s FPP also provides guidance for vegetation maintenance for the proposed FMZs and landscaped areas on the Project site. The requirements and recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP have been designed specifically for the proposed Project. The analysis and its fire protection justifications as documented in the Project’s FPP are supported by fire science research, results from previous wildfire incidents, and fire agencies that have approved these concepts. The Project design would feature ignition-resistant construction, asphalt roads and parking stalls, sufficient water supply, and up to 170 feet of on-site fuel modification. (Dudek, 2025, p. 94)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

In addition, and assuming implementation of the Project’s proposed drainage system, implementation of the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures would ensure that future Project structures are not exposed to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis, and assuming mandatory compliance with the recommendations provided in the Project’s FPP, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Compliance with the Project’s FPP would be required pursuant to SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1, which has been modified herein to reference the Project’s FPP and to specifically require CFD review of implementing building permits and landscape plans for compliance with the FPP recommendations. Accordingly, with implementation of SHP EIR Mitigation Measure PS-1 and the recommendations of the Project’s FPP, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR. c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As described above under the analysis of Threshold b), the proposed Project would include FMZs that would extend up to 170 feet from all proposed structures on site, would include a 10-foot clearance zone along internal roadways that directly abut open space areas, and would include the installation of fire walls in certain locations. However, physical impacts associated with implementation of the Project’s fire protection measures, including the proposed FMZs, have been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum under the appropriate subject heading. For example, the discussion and analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources in Subsection 2.4 accounts for physical impacts associated with development of the Project, including the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures, as previously shown on Figure 9. There are no impacts to the environment that could result from the Project’s FMZs and fire protection measures that have not already been addressed herein and/or in the SHP EIR, and all of the Project’s physical impacts to the environment would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein). Additionally, the Project’s proposed fire protection measures would reduce the Project site’s potential for wildfire hazards as compared to existing conditions, and there are no components of the Project that would exacerbate wildfire hazard risk. Accordingly, because the Project would not exacerbate fire risk, and because impacts to the environment associated with the Project’s FMZs and other fire protection measures would be reduced to lessthan-significant levels with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein), Project impacts due to fire protection infrastructure would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impact not already analyzed in the SHP EIR or increase the severity of a significant impact previously identified and analyzed in the SHP EIR.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change from
Previous
Analysis
a. Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Does the Project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The SHP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts under the issue areas of aesthetics only. The Project would not result in any new or increased impacts to aesthetics, and in fact the analysis presented herein in Subsection 2.1 demonstrates that the proposed Project’s impacts to aesthetics would be reduced in comparison to what was evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR due to the Project’s proposed increase in open space areas by 22.0% and the reduction in the number of dwelling units proposed on site by 16 units as compared to the Approved Project. As indicated in the discussion and analysis presented herein in Subsection 2.4, with implementation of the SHP EIR mitigation measures (as modified/supplemented herein), the Project’s impacts to biological resources, including wildlife habitat and sensitive wildlife species, would be reduced to below a level of significance. The analysis provided herein in Subsection f) demonstrates that with mitigation to address the potential for uncovering previously undiscovered

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

resources, the Project’s impacts to cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources, would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, 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 and analyzed in the SHP EIR. b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the Project have been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum, which concludes that such impacts would not occur, would be less than significant, or would be reduced to a level below significant with implementation of the mitigation measures specified by the SHP EIR (as modified/ supplemented herein), standard City Conditions of Approval (COAs), and/or regulatory requirements. Additionally, this EIR Addendum concludes that the Project as proposed would not result in any new or more severe cumulative effects beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed by the SHP EIR. All applicable mitigation measures identified as part of the SHP EIR and that were imposed to address cumulatively-considerable effects would continue to apply to the Project as revised, except as modified or supplemented by this Addendum to the SHP EIR. The analysis throughout this EIR Addendum demonstrates that all Project impacts would be less than significant, or would be reduced in comparison to the analysis and conclusions of SHP EIR. Additionally, the analysis herein demonstrates that physical impacts associated with the Project (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, etc.) would not substantially change or increase compared to the analysis presented in SHP EIR, and there have been no changed circumstances since the certification of the SHP EIR that would result in any new or increased significant impacts.

Therefore, because the Project would have similar or reduced cumulative impacts to the environment as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in SHP EIR, the Project would not result in any new or increased impacts to the environment beyond what was evaluated, disclosed, and mitigated for by the SHP EIR. 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. c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EIR Addendum No. 1 Finding: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evaluated throughout this EIR Addendum (e.g., Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Noise, etc.). Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures from the SHP EIR have been imposed, as modified or supplemented by this EIR Addendum to the SHP EIR, to reduce these adverse effects to a level below significance. There are no components of the Project that could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings that are not already evaluated and disclosed throughout this EIR Addendum and/or by the SHP EIR. Accordingly, no additional impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Project

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

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.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

3.0 REFERENCES
Cited As: Source:
(BFSA, 2023a) BFSA Environmental Services, 2023a. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Skyline Heights Project. October 26, 2023. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix E.
(BFSA, 2023b) BFSA Environmental Services, 2023b. Paleontological Sensitivity Update and Revised Monitoring Recommendations for the Skyline Heights Project, City of Corona, Riverside County, California (Sch. No. 2014021003). October 26, 2023. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix F.
(CalRecycle,
2024a)
CalRecycle, 2024a. El Sobrante Landfill November 2024 Tonnage Report. November 2024.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWISDocument/Document/Download/485002 (CalRecycle,
2024b)
CalRecycle, 2024b. Lamb Canyon Landfill October 2024 Tonnage Report. October 2024.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWISDocument/Document/Download/482777 (CalRecycle,
2024c)
CalRecycle, 2024c. Badlands Landfill December 2024 Tonnage Report. December 2024.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWISDocument/Document/Download/487361 (Caltrans, 2020) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020. Vibration Manual. April 2020.

Available online: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (CEC, 2022) California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.

August 2022. Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 12/CEC-400-2022-010_CMF.pdf
(CFD, 2023) Corona Fire Department, 2023. Explosives, Blasting and Pyrotechnics Permit Guideline per 2022 CFC. December 5, 2023. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix L. (CGS, 2014) California Geological Survey, 2014. Mineral Land Classification Map. 2014. (Included in the Project’s Administrative Record)
(Corona, 2014) City of Corona, 2014. NOP for the SHSP EIR. January 31, 2014. (Included in the Project’s Administrative Record)
(Corona, 2015) City of Corona, 2015. Skyline Heights Project EIR. December 2015. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix A.
(Corona, 2016) City of Corona, 2016. Recirculated SHSP EIR. November 2016. (Included in the Project’s Administrative Record)
(Corona, 2019a) City of Corona, 2019a. City of Corona Climate Action Plan. March 2019. Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18422/63723935396207000 0 (Corona, 2019b) City of Corona, 2019b. City of Corona General Plan EIR. 2019. Accessed February 3, 2025.

Available online: https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departmentsdivisions/planning-division/general-plan-update

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Cited As: Source:
(Corona, 2020) City of Corona, 2020. General Plan. June 3, 2020. Accessed December 13, 2024. Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/25479/63849403903237000 0 (Corona, 2021) City of Corona, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 16, 2021. Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20292/63761240271340000 0 (Corona, 2024) City of Corona, 2024. City of Corona Municipal Code. 2024. Accessed February 3, 2025.

Available online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0- 54679
(DTSC, n.d.) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), n.d. Cortese List. Accessed February 3, 2025/ Available online: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ (Dudek, 2025) Dudek, 2024. Fire Protection Plan, September 2025. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix K.
(FEMA, 2008a) Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008a. FIRM 06065C1351G. August 28, 2008.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/downloadProduct?productTypeID=FINAL_PRODUCT&produc tSubTypeID=FIRM_PANEL&productID=06065C1351G
(FEMA, 2008b) Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008b. FIRM 06065C1353G. August 28, 2008.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/downloadProduct?productTypeID=FINAL_PRODUCT&produc tSubTypeID=FIRM_PANEL&productID=06065C1353G
(Google Earth,
2024)
Google Earth Pro, 2024. Google Earth Viewer (application). Aerial Photograph dated May 9, 2024. Available online: https://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html (KWC Engineers,
2025a)
KWC Engineers, 2025a. Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulics Report. February 2025. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix H1.
(KWC Engineers,
2025b)
KWC Engineers, 2025b. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. June 23, 2025.

Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix H2.
(L&L, 2024) L&L Environmental, Inc. 2024. An Updated Biological Resources Assessment and Crotch Bumble Bee Survey. November 2024. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix D1. (L&L, 2025) L&L Environmental, Inc. 2024. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report. January 2025. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix D2. (LGC, 2019a) LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 2019a. Geotechnical Rough Grading Plan Review for the Proposed Skyline Heights Residential Development, Tract No. 36544, City of Corona, California.

January 30, 2019. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix G1. (LGC, 2019b) LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 2019b. Updated Fault Evaluation for the Proposed "Skyline Heights" Residential Development, Tract No. 36544, City of Corona, California. January 22, 2019.

Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix G1.
(RCA, 1996) Regional Conservation Authority, 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County California. March 1996. Available online:
https://www.rchca.us/DocumentCenter/View/549/SKR-Habitat-Conservation-Plan

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Cited As: Source:
(RCA, n.d.) Regional Conservation Authority, n.d. RCA MSHCP Information Map. No date. Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2b9d4520bd5f4d35a dd35fb58808c1b7
(RCIT, n.d.) Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), n.d. Riverside County GIS. No date.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online: https://rcitgiscountyofriverside.hub.arcgis.com/ (Riverside County
ALUC, 1993)
County of Riverside Airport Land Use Commission, 1993. Corona Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. March 17, 1993. Accessed December 13, 2024. Available on-line: https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13-PDFGeneralplan-oldplan-Corona-20Municipal-20Airport.PDF.pdf (RWQCB, 2019) Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. June 2019.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available online:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ (SCAG, 2024) Southern California Association of Governments, 2024. Connect SoCal. April 4, 2024.

Accessed December 13, 2024. Available on-line: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf?1714175547 (UC, 2023) Urban Crossroads, 2023. Noise and Vibration Analysis. December 11, 2023. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix I.
(UC, 2024) Urban Crossroads, 2024. Skyline Heights Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment.

February 14, 2024. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix C. (UC, 2025) Urban Crossroads, 2025. Traffic Analysis. January 23, 2025. Included as EIR Addendum Technical Appendix J.
(USCB, 2024) United States Census Bureau, 2024. Quick Facts Corona City, California. July 1, 2024.

Accessed February 3, 2025. Available on-line:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/coronacitycalifornia/PST045224

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM1. The project impact areas and avoidance areas shall be flagged or fenced prior to clearing to prevent incursion into unsurveyed or avoided areas. A qualified biological monitor(s) shall monitor work activities during the initial clearing and grading phase of construction (including any ground or vegetation disturbance, demolition, fence installation, grading of existing roads, material delivery, etc.). The monitoring biologist shall ensure the flagging or fencing remains intact and no incursions into avoided areas occurs. The monitoring biologist shall examine each area of impact as the clearing/grading operations move into an uncleared native habitat area or into any area that has had a lapse in construction for more than 30 days to ensure no sensitive wildlife species are present. The biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other Project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species.

If wildlife is discovered, the biological monitor shall take appropriate action as defined in the mitigation measures, permit conditions, and regulations. The biological monitor may move wildlife or humanely encourage it to move out of harm’s way, if safe and feasible and permitted to do so. Potential day roosts for pallid bat (e.g., caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, buildings, etc.) shall be inspected by a qualified bat biologist prior to initial ground disturbance. If bats are roosting, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review prior to impacts. If a colony is discovered during the breeding season (March 1 -October 1), the biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, including, but not limited to sound walls, buffers, and Project phasing/timing, to prevent disturbance to the colony until all young are weaned and capable of foraging independently.

Monitoring and survey activities shall be documented on a daily basis. All monitoring reports and communications shall be retained in Project files to allow review by the City of Corona, CDFW, and USFWS, if requested.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to site
clearing or grading
activities for each phase
of development
Prior to issuance of grading
permit, site clearing or
grading activities for each
phase of development
On-site inspection Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2. Special Status Botanical Species. The following measures shall apply to address and minimize potential impacts to Coulter’s matilija poppy, intermediate mariposa lily, and chaparral nolina to the extent feasible.
• Impacts shall be minimized and avoided to the extent feasible. Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing and grading), Coulter’s matilija poppy and intermediate mariposa lily plants within the development footprint shall be salvaged for use in the Project area, avoidance area, or reuse in local restoration projects. In addition, a qualified botanist shall collect seeds from plants within the grading impact area during the spring or summer before grading commencement.
• Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing and grading), impacts to chaparral nolina shall be mitigated through translocation and seed collection with propagation to an on-site or off‐site preserved property acceptable to the City. The property shall be composed of habitat characteristics suitable to support chaparral nolina, including but not limited to: appropriate soils, elevation, and supporting chaparral or coastal sage scrub (or a combination thereof) habitat. The property shall be conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-due diligence approved local conservation entity to protect chaparral nolina on the property in perpetuity. Alternatively, the land may be transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. A management fund shall be established by the Applicant and will consist of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, signage replacement and repair, law enforcement measures, long-term management reporting (as described below), and other actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity.
• Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted by the Applicant and approved by the City to determine the management needs and costs described above, which then will be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the fund.

This management fund shall be held and managed by a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. To protect the mitigation area(s), the Project Applicant shall place appropriate signage around the perimeter of each site.

Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the mitigation areas, except maintenance of habitat, including City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to site
clearing or grading
activities for each phase
of development
Prior to issuance of grading
permit, site clearing or
grading activities for each
phase of development
Review of conservation plans by
project biologist and mitigation
planting plan, conservation
easement, or deed restriction;
and On-site inspection
Withhold grading
permit

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials. Prior to any ground disturbance, the Applicant shall prepare a Chaparral Nolina Planting Plan (Plan) for chaparral nolina.

The Plan shall require a replacement ratio of 1:1 by area, and ensure a minimum 90 percent survivorship at the end of a five-year monitoring period, which shall be verified by the monitoring biologist (minimum qualifications of the monitoring biologist are specified below). At a minimum, the five-year plan shall include the following information:

1. a description of the existing conditions of the receiver site(s) characterizing the suitability of the site(s) for chaparral nolina, and documenting the acreage of the site,

2. a description of how the site will be preserved in perpetuity, e.g., conservation easement, deed restriction, etc., and the name of the CDFW-approved due diligence entity that will hold the easement/deed restriction, etc.,

3. qualifications of the monitoring biologist. At a minimum the monitoring biologist will possess a minimum of five-year's experience conducting habitat restoration projects in coastal sage scrub and/or chaparral habitat in Riverside County, California,

4. receiver site preparation for transplanting,

5. goals for success,

6. schedule,

7. propagation techniques,

8. transplant and seedling installation methods,

9. plant spacing,

10. performance criteria for success, including provision for control of non-native and invasive species,

11. monitoring and reporting procedures for each of the five years of the monitoring period,

12. adaptive management strategies, including a contingency plan should the site fail to meet the specified success criteria, and

13. maintenance requirements that will be reviewed and approved by the City. The Plan shall also ensure a mixture of both male and female plants.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3. Compensation Parcel. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall preserve a minimum of ten (10) acres (a 1:1 ratio) of natural habitat, which shall be biologically equivalent or superior to the Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) land the project site surrounds, and shall be located adjacent to USFS land. The compensation parcel shall either be:

1. Deeded in fee title to the United States Forest Service (USFS) or Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to ensure appropriate protection and permanent habitat management in perpetuity, or

2. Conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-due diligence approved local conservation entity.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to site
clearing or grading
activities for each phase
of development
Prior to issuance of grading
permit, site clearing or
grading activities for each
phase of development
Proof of conservation easement
or deed restriction; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4. Designate Unimpacted Areas as Open Space. Prior to recordation of Final Maps for each phase of the proposed development, those areas of the project site not impacted by the project footprint, including Riparian/Riverine and excluding the minimum 10-acre preservation area identified in BIO-MM3, shall be conserved in perpetuity via the recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-approved local conservation entity; or transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. The avoided Riparian/Riverine areas shall be conserved prior to issuance of a grading permit. The CDFW-approved local conservation entity shall manage the conservation areas to protect the long-term conservation, functions and values in-perpetuity.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to Final Map
recordation for each
phase of development
Prior to Final Map recordation
for each phase of
development
Proof of conservation easement
or deed restriction; On-site
inspection
Withhold Final Map
approval and
recordation
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5. Other Species to Avoid in Landscaping. Prior to issuance of grading permits, building permits, and/or road improvement plans, the Project Applicant shall prepare a landscape plan for review and approval by the City of Corona The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of more common cultivar forms of Coulter’s matilija poppy to the list of plants to be avoided in site landscaping, including White Cloud matilija poppy. Additional non-native plants that shall not be planted within any onsite mitigation or landscaping include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). In addition, the landscape plan shall exclude those species identified in Table 6-2, Plants that Should be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). To ensure these non-native plants are not used in landscaping within the project site, the project Applicant shall include a list of plant species to avoid within the CC&Rs for the development. The project applicant City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of building permits
Prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the
production units and review
of HOA
landscape plans.

Review of CC&Rs; On- site
inspection
Withhold building
permit

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
shall also develop and distribute a suitable homeowner education package to residents / new owners covering the species to avoid
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM6. Oak Tree Replacement. The project Applicant shall replace oak trees impacted by the project at a ratio consistent with the City of Corona oak tree conservancy policy (10.10.5), at no less than a 2:1 ratio.

Replacement trees shall be located in undeveloped natural areas suitable to support these trees or in onsite mitigation areas where possible. If spacing requirements limit the number of replacement trees in these areas additional plantings may be located in landscaped areas as close to open space as feasible. All replacement trees shall be planted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Review of HOA
landscape plans and prior to
issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for each phase of
development
On-site inspection Withhold Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM7. Riparian/Riverine. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall provide mitigation for ±10.5107 acres of Riparian/Riverine impacts at no less than a 2:1 basis, as determined through consultation with the City of Corona and Wildlife Agencies based on their approval of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (“DBESP”; see SHP EIR Addendum No. 1 Technical Appendix D2) that provides a functions and values analysis pursuant to the requirements of the MSHCP. If offsite mitigation is incorporated, the preferred choice shall be to find mitigation within or adjacent to the Santa Ana Watershed and in or adjacent to Corona if possible. In addition, some avoided resources within the open space areas shall be preserved to the extent feasible pursuant to a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism to prevent future development.

If onsite mitigation is proposed as an alternative mitigation, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be developed and provided for review and approval by local and regulatory agencies, and shall include at a minimum the following components:
• Quantitative success criteria (vegetation cover and species richness); • Recommendations for soil preparation;
• A plant palette to include native species occurring on the site, such as coast live oak and Coulter’s matilija poppy; • Planting methods;
• Irrigation and maintenance requirements; and
• A long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring plan with remedial measures.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of grading permit for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for each phase of
development
Proof of mitigation credits,
conservation easement or deed
restriction; On-site inspection
Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM8. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall prepare for City of Corona review and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which shall identify all standard best management practices (BMPs) to prevent discharges from entering avoided jurisdictional drainages during construction. The required SWPPP shall at a minimum include BMPs that include but are not limited to:
• Use of erosion control or sedimentation prevention methods, such as fiber rolls, sand bags, rice mats, straw wattles, or similar measures, where appropriate; and
• Proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, antifreeze, and other toxic substances will be enforced.

Compliance with the City-approved SWPPP shall be required as a condition of grading permit approval, compliance with the SWPPP shall be required by bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors, and the Project construction contractors shall permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Corona staff or its designee to confirm compliance during all construction activities.

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once prior to site
clearing for each phase
of development
Prior to site clearing for each
phase of development
Review of SWPPP Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM9. Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of 1.48 acres and temporary loss of ±0.25-acre of State waters regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (via issuance and implementation of a Clean Water Act [CWA] Section 401 Certification) to replace permanently-impacted State waters as specified by the agreement with RWQCB at not less than a 2:1 basis, through offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of State waters or a combination of these options. Temporary impacts to RWQCB State waters shall be mitigated through on-site restoration within the temporarily impacted areas or as otherwise specified by the CWA Section 401 certification. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment included in the Project’s Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (“DBESP”; see SHP EIR Addendum No. 1 Technical Appendix D1) and pursuant to RWQCB’s approval. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) outlining the details of the mitigation shall be required for any on-site mitigation or off-site mitigation on lands not already subject to an RWQCB-approved HMMP.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of grading permit for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for each phase of
development
Proof of Agreements and
regulatory permits
Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM10. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of ±10.51 acres of streambed and wetlands and the temporary loss of ±1.13 acres of streambed due to project construction, the project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the California Department City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of grading permit for
Prior to issuance of grading
permit for each phase of
development
Review of Agreements/ permits Withhold grading
permit

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) via issuance and implementation of a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement to replace affected streambed at not less than a 2:1 basis (mitigation:impact) for permanent impacts and restoration of temporarily impacted areas to their existing/former condition, as specified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, through a combination of offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of the streambed. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment pursuant to CDFW’s approval of the required Streambed Alteration Agreement. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) outlining the details of the mitigation shall be required for on-site mitigation or off-site mitigation on lands not already subject to a CDFW-approved HMMP. each phase of
development
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM11. Nesting Birds. To prevent impacts to sensitive, migratory, and nesting birds (including raptors), clearing, or other work in native habitats shall be avoided during the critical nesting period of January 1 – September 1. If work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiation of clearing and/or grading. A letter report documenting the clearance survey and its results shall be provided to the City of Corona prior to any disturbance to the Project site. If nesting birds are present, a nesting bird plan shall be developed and implemented to include appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts, including maintaining a buffer area until fledging has occurred. Active bird nests shall be mapped utilizing a handheld global positioning system (GPS) (getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest) and a buffer will be flagged around the nest (typically 300 feet for most species, 500-foot buffer for raptor nests), as determined appropriate by the biologist. Construction should not be permitted within the buffer area while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Once fledging has occurred no further avoidance is required.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
- Development Services Division
Once at plan check
(review of construction
bid documents); Once
prior to construction
activities in undisturbed
areas for each phase of
development
Plan check (review of
construction bid documents);
Prior to construction activities
in undisturbed areas for each
phase of development
Review of nesting bird survey if
done during nesting season.

Withhold grading
and/or building permit;
Halt construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM12. Burrowing Owl. A pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted by an experienced burrowing owl biologist no more than 30 days before earth disturbance (construction). The survey will be conducted as close to the actual construction initiation date as possible. A letter report documenting the clearance survey and its results shall be provided to the City of Corona prior to any disturbance to the Project site and prior to commencement of grading activities. If owls are present, the project biologist shall consult with local and state agencies, as appropriate, and develop a mitigation plan. Mitigation will be based on the following goals and requirements included in the MSHCP:

1. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than three (3) pairs of burrowing owls, the onsite burrowing owls will be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.

2. Occupied nests shall be avoided during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) and a buffer of 300 to 500 feet shall be employed, depending on the level of disturbance surrounding the burrow.

3. Burrow exclusion shall be utilized outside of the nesting season by installing a one-way door in burrow openings.

The burrow shall be closed following verification burrows are empty (through site monitoring and scoping).

4. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports three (3) or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the a
City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once within 30 days
prior to construction
activities in undisturbed
areas for each phase of
development
Within 30 days prior to
construction activities in
undisturbed areas for each
phase of development
Proof of burrowing owl survey. . Withhold grading
and/or building permits
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM13. Mountain Lion Program. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for each phase of development, a mountain lion (Puma concolor) program shall be developed by the project Applicant for City review and approval in an effort to reduce likelihood of human-lion conflicts. The program shall include the following components:

1. A suitable homeowner education package for distribution to residents / new owners;

2. A suitable road sign program warning of the presence of mountain lions and the need for reduced speeds and increased caution;

3. A suitable CC&R provision limiting unsupervised outdoor pets and pet feeding practices that may encourage mountain lions to enter residential yards in search of food; and

4. A suitable mountain lion safety plan.

The Project’s CC&Rs shall include a provision specifically requiring future homeowners to comply with the requirements of the Mountain Lion Program.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy first production
unit.

Proof of program documents and
CC&Rs and placement of
information at model home
complex.

Withhold Certificates of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14. A qualified biologist shall monitor clearing and grubbing activities as they impact vegetation on the site. A qualified biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species. If wildlife is discovered, the qualified biologist shall move it out of harm’s way or allow it to move safely out of the work area prior to initiation of project activities.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
At least once prior to
site clearing activities in
undisturbed areas for
each phase of
development
Prior to site clearing activities
in undisturbed areas for each
phase of development the
project applicant shall
demonstrate to the Planning
On-site inspection by project
biologist and report of findings
submitted to the Planning
Division.

Halt construction

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Potential day roosts for pallid bat (e.g., caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, buildings, etc.) shall be inspected by a qualified bat biologist prior to initial ground disturbance. If bats are roosting, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review prior to impacts. If a colony is discovered during the breeding season (March-October), the biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, including, but not limited to sound walls, buffers, and project phasing/timing, to prevent disturbance to the colony until all young are weaned and capable of foraging independently.

Division that a project
biologist has been retained
during initial on-site
disturbance activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM15. Homeowner Education Package (Invasive Species). Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall develop for review and approval by the City of Corona, a homeowner education package providing and informing future occupants that the list of plant species identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-5 are prohibited and may not be planted on any individual lot. The homeowner education package also shall include a list of recommended non-prohibited plant species. A copy of the City-approved homeowner education package shall be provided to future owners/tenants as part of all future lease/sales agreements.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to issuance of first
Certificate of Occupancy for
production units
Proof of design guidelines and
CC&Rs
Withhold Certificates of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM16. All heavy equipment used onsite shall be washed, particularly the wheels and under carriage, prior to bringing it onto the project site from other construction sites to prevent the spread of weedy species.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
Once at plan check
(review of construction
bid documents); As
needed during
construction activities
for each phase of
development
Note on grading plans. Plan
check (review of construction
bid documents); At least once
during construction of each
phase of development
Review of construction bid
documents; on-site inspection.

Withhold grading
and/or building permit;
Halt construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM17. Staging areas shall be placed in areas that have been previously disturbed or have degraded habitat within the project footprint but do not show an infestation of non-native species. Staging areas shall be maintained in a weed/noxious weed-free condition.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
Once at plan check
(review of construction
bid documents); As
needed during
construction activities
for each phase of
development
Note on grading plans. Plan
check (review of construction
bid documents); At least once
during construction of each
phase of development
Review of construction bid
documents; on-site inspection.

Withhold grading
and/or building permit;
Halt construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM18. All refuse created or brought onsite by clearing personnel or contractors shall be placed in covered containers, removed from the site daily, and disposed of properly.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
Once at plan check
(review of construction
bid documents); As
needed during
construction activities
for each phase of
development
Note on grading plans. Plan
check (review of construction
bid documents); At least once
during construction of each
phase of development
Review of construction bid
documents; on-site inspection.

Withhold grading
and/or building permit;
Halt construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM19. Field crews shall maintain the speed limit on posted roads and limit vehicle/truck speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
Once at plan check
(review of construction
bid documents); As
needed during
construction
activities for each phase
of development
Note on grading plans. Plan
check (review of construction
bid documents); At least once
during
construction of each phase of
development
Review of construction bid
documents; on-site inspection.

Withhold grading
and/or building permit;
Halt construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM20. Urban/Wildlands Interface. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall ensure that the grading and building plans have incorporated the measures to meet the requirements of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines and requirements (see MSHCP Volume I, Part 2 of 2, subsection 6.1.4) with respect to Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Barriers, Access, Pets, and Grading/Land Development (See Section 9.5 of the BRA Report included in Appendix D to this Draft EIR).

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(construction
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM21. Crotch’s Bumble Bee. In the event the Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) status is listed as candidate, threatened or endangered by the CDFW at the time of construction, the following measures shall be implemented.
• Clearing/ground-disturbing activities shall be prohibited from February 1 through September 30 within suitable habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee. As part of this requirement, if construction is proposed during this period, a qualified biologist shall go out and mark all of the suitable habitat on site, which must be avoided and fencing provided around any accessible areas until at least September 30. A letter report documenting the actions performed and completion of this measure shall be provided to the City of Corona prior to any disturbance of the Project site. Construction activities may commence in areas outside of suitable habitat for the bee. • For construction between October 1 and January 31, a pre-construction survey is required within suitable habitat to confirm that no nests occur on site. Should any nests be identified, the Project biologist shall consult with CDFW to determine if permits are required. Clearance within that portion of the property determined by the biologist to support a nest and a suitable buffer shall be avoided until consultation with the CDFW determines activities can resume or the site is no longer occupied. If the pre-construction survey identifies no nests, then construction activities may proceed as normal. A letter report documenting the actions performed and completion of this measure shall be provided to the City of Corona prior to any disturbance of the Project site. If consultation with the CDFW is required a second letter report shall be provided documenting the CDFW determination, requirements and approval prior to moving forward with construction activities on that portion of the Project site.
• Pesticides considered harmful to the Crotch bumble bee shall be prohibited during construction.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Bee surveys are
required prior to
commencement of
grading activities if they
occur between February
1 and September 30
within suitable habitat,
and pre-construction
surveys are required for
construction activities
that would commence
between October 1 and
January 31 within
suitable habitat
Prior to issuance of grading
permits and prior to the
commencement of
clearing/ground-disturbing
activities
Submittal of bee survey, letter
and other documentation as
applicable to the City for review
Withhold grading
permit or withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM22 Workers Environmental Awareness Program. All persons employed or otherwise working on the Project site during the vegetation clearing and grading phase of construction shall attend a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training. All workers must attend WEAP training prior to performing any work on-site. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation (either provided in person by the biological monitor or a recorded training session) that includes a discussion of the biology of the habitats and species that may be present at the site. The WEAP shall also include information about the special-status plant and wildlife species that may be present, legal protections for those species, penalties for violations, and mitigation measures. The WEAP shall include but not be limited to burrowing owl, nesting birds, and other special-status species. The WEAP shall also include information on weed control practices, appropriate trash disposal, fire prevention and procedures for smoking, spill prevention and procedures, jurisdictional waters and SWPPP, BMPs, biological monitors and compliance responsibilities, and other issues such as pets, firearms, etc.

Attendance at training shall be documented and construction workers provided with a hardhat sticker. Supporting materials shall be provided to all personnel during the training program, including contact information for the biological monitor and/or other compliance personnel. Informal or formal refresher training shall be conducted as needed to maintain compliance.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Notes to be included on
grading and building
plans
Prior to commencement of
construction work on site for
all construction employees
Submittal of proof WEAP
attendance to the City for review
Withhold grading
permit or withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM23 Restoration. Prior to final grading inspection, temporary impact areas associated with the haul road required during site mass grading activities shall be restored to its former condition.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
- Development Services Division
-Public Works Department
Once prior to issuance
of occupancy permits
Following completion of
grading and prior to final
grading inspection
Site visit and submittal of written
confirmation from the developer
Withhold Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM24 Invasive Species Restrictions and CC&Rs. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Corona with a copy of the Project’s Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Project CC&Rs shall explicitly prohibit the planting of the non-native plant species identified by Mitigation Measure BIO-5.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
- Development Services Division
-Public Works Department
Notes to be included on
grading and building
plans
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permits
Copy of CC&Rs to be provided to
the City
Withhold grading
permit or withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-1, Drainage – The project incorporates project streets, open channels and natural drainage courses as well as a comprehensive system of underground storm drains to handle storm runoff from the project site. Storm water from the project site and off-site areas will be directed to storm drains. The design and operation of the drainage channel shall be adequate to preclude discharge of water into open space areas that are of lower quality or higher quality than current conditions. The proposed development shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the NPDES requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the open space area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into open space areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within open space areas. This will be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Public Works Department
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures);
once prior to issuance
of grading permit for
each phase of
development or as
necessary during
construction
(construction
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
PDF BIO-2, Toxics – The proposed project is designed to utilize natural drainage patterns for the flow of surface water.

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) include education, storm drain stenciling, and street sweeping in compliance with the City of Corona’s requirements. The earthen channel shall be signed to filter potential toxics in the storm water prior to its discharge into open space areas. These BMPs will be implemented as part of the storm water pollution prevention measures for the project, in accordance with all appropriate NPDES requirements. The project would result in the additional use of hazardous materials in limited quantities associated with normal residential use such as cleaning products, solvents, herbicides, and insecticides. However, compliance with regulations will reduce the potential risk of hazardous material exposure to a level that is less than significant. An information pamphlet has been prepared for each homeowner regarding the use of toxics.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Public Works Department
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(construction
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-3, Lighting – Outdoor lighting of residences will be designed so that all direct beams would be confined to dwelling sites. Project lighting will not intrude into the open space conservation areas. Street lighting, parking lot lighting, and other project-related illumination sources will be positioned, directed, and shielded so as to avoid “light spill” into the conserved areas. The proposed project will avoid any night lighting adjacent to the open space areas. Night lighting will not be used during the course of construction unless absolutely necessary. If necessary, the lights will be directed and shielded to minimize lighting of the surrounding habitat. The level of off-site lighting and lighting fixtures would comply with the applicable requirements and policies of the City of Corona.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(construction
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-4, Noise – The proposed project incorporates landscape elements including trees, shrubs, and groundcover, which will assist in noise reduction on the project site. In addition, a noise analysis prepared for the project found that no proposed on-site or surrounding sensitive land uses would experience long-term noise levels in excess of 65 dBA during the daytime hours under build-out of the proposed project. This daytime noise level would not result in exterior nighttime levels greater than 45 dBA. Therefore, no noise created on the project site would exceed residential noise standards.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for each phase of
development
Review of Project plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading,
building, or landscape
permit; Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-5, Invasives – Exotic Vegetation Control – Design guidelines for the project will provide the homeowners with a list of native landscaping materials permitted within the project site. These materials have been selected for their contribution to the project theme, adaptability to local climatic and soil conditions, and for their compatibility with the unique natural environment in the project site. The MSHCP has identified exotic invasive plants that should be areas avoided adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area in Table 6-2, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP; none of these plants will be utilized for the proposed project and their use by future homeowners will be prohibited.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(constructio n
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
PDF BIO-6, Barriers – The proposed project will include theme walls along project perimeter streets adjacent to public streets, and will include walls and fencing located where public view and/or important interfaces are of concern. The proposed project will incorporate special edge treatments designed to separate development areas from open space areas. These areas of native landscaping and fencing will serve to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animals predation, and illegal trespass and dumping. Exclusion fencing will be permanently placed where development abuts avoided and adjacent open space areas. The exclusion fence will be a minimum of eight feet in height and will be installed and maintained for the purposed of controlling human and pet access (cats and dogs) into the open space area and be in compliance with MSHCP requirements. The fencing will be permanent and will be maintained in perpetuity.

Approval of the fencing design will be required by the City of Corona prior to project initiation.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(constructio n
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project plans,
construction documents, and onsite inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; halt
construction; withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-7, Access – Access points between native habitats and the project development will be posted with signage requesting residents to stay on the trails and not to disturb habitat. Yard fencing with no back gate will reduce access to native habitats adjacent to the project.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); Once prior
to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
for each phase of
development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for each phase of
development
Review of Project plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit;
Withhold Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-8, Pets – Uncontrolled pets, feral dogs and cats can predate on native wildlife species. Appropriate signage will be posted requesting residents leash their pets. Homeowner Educational pamphlets will be used to inform them of the potential impacts by uncontrolled pets on native habitats and to request residents be good stewards of the land and prevent or limit their domestic cats from being allowed to openly hunt in the avoidance area.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
On-site inspection Withhold Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-9, Grading/Land Development – All manufactured slopes associated with site development will be within the project site and there will be no impact to the MSHCP Conservation Area. All manufactured slopes that abut the natural open space will be retained as open space buffer zones. All manufactured slopes and areas disturbed by construction of these slopes will be revegetated with appropriate non-invasive buffer species during project construction.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Building Division
Once during plan check
(project design- related
measures); once prior
to issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development or as
necessary during
construction
(construction
measures);
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Plan check (project designrelated measures); Prior to
issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
(construction measures);
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Review of Project grading plans;
on-site inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit;
withhold Certificate of
Occupancy

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the SB 18 process ("Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Corona Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling: terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
At least once prior to
Issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development
Prior to Issuance of grading
permit for each phase of
development
Proof of Tribal Monitoring
Agreement(s)
Withhold grading
permit

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring. At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities on the site take place, the Project Applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and RPA-certified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources/TCRs and assist with avoidance, preservation and/or mitigation per the City's Mitigation Measures on known resources.

The Project Archaeologist in consultation with the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Developer and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area: what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program: the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Monitoring Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis.
c. The coordination of a monitoring schedule as agreed upon by the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Project archaeologist and the applicant;
d. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer. City, Monitoring Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
At least once within 30
days prior to Issuance of
grading permit for each
phase of development
At least 30 days prior to
Issuance of grading permit for
each phase of development
Proof of retention/ contract and
submittal of CRMP to the City.

CRMP shall be approved by the
City and consulting tribal groups.

Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Treatment and Disposition of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this Project and avoidance of the TCRs is not feasible, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction. All discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process; and

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to tribal cultural resources. Human remains, sacred/ceremonial items and burial good will be addressed per State Law.

Mitigation Measure CR-1 and the Agreement required in Mitigation Measure CR-1. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts as indicated below and provide the City of Corona Planning Division with evidence of same:
a. Professional curation, including a curation agreement with a qualified repository in Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers upon application. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
b. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City Planning Division documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Corona, Eastern Information Center and Monitoring Tribe(s).

City of Corona
-Planning Division
As necessary during
grading and
construction activities
for each phase of
development
As necessary during grading
and construction activities for
each phase of development
Submittal of curation agreement,
Phase IV Monitoring Report and
other written documentation as
necessary to the City for review
Withhold grading or
building permit/ halt
construction
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sacred Sites. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
As necessary during
grading and
construction activities
As necessary during grading
and construction activities for
each phase of development
Proof of Monitoring Report(s) Withhold grading or
building permit/ halt
construction

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
for each phase of
development
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving. the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find.

The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Planning Division immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin If human remains are determined to be Native American,, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NARC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Treatment and disposition of the remains shall be determined in consultation with the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate disposition of human remains and any associated grave artifacts. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials are confidential and may not be disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC). A Sacred Lands File form will be submitted to the NAHC by the project archaeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s).

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Public Works Div.

As necessary during
grading and
construction activities
for each phase of
development
As necessary during grading
and construction activities for
each phase of development
Proof of Monitoring Report(s) Withhold grading or
building permit/ halt
construction
Mitigation Measure CR-6: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for excavations into the Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation, the Upper Cretaceous Williams and Ladd Formations (undifferentiated), the Early Pleistocene Very Old Alluvial Fan Deposits; the Upper Cretaceous Ladd Formation/Baker Canyon Conglomerate member; and Paleocene Silverado Formation. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist is defined as a paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. The qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall conduct a preconstruction field assessment to locate fossils at surface exposures. The qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present at such times as required by the paleontologist during construction excavations into the fossiliferous formations mentioned above. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring shall be determined by the paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. If resources are located, monitoring hours shall be increased as needed.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
At least once prior to
Issuance of grading
permit for each phase
of development
Prior to Issuance of grading
permit for each phase of
development
Proof of PRIMP Withhold grading
permit
Mitigation Measure CR-7: If a potential fossil is found, the qualified vertebrate paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil, as determined appropriate by the monitor, to assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures may include avoidance or preservation in place, if feasible. If preservation or avoidance of the resource is not feasible, then the resource shall be removed from its location. Removal activities may consist of the relatively rapid removal of small isolated fossils from an active cut, to hand-quarrying of larger fossils over several hours, to excavations of large fossils or large numbers of smaller fossils from a bone bed over several days. These activities may include the assistance of the grading and excavation contractor’s equipment to facilitate removal. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County Museum, the John D.

Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Curation Center at the California State University, Fullerton, or Western Science Center in Hemet, California. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
-Public Works Department
As necessary during
grading and
construction activities
for each phase of
development
As necessary during grading
and construction activities for
each phase of development
Proof of Monitoring Report(s) or
on-site inspection
Halt Construction
Mitigation Measure CR-8: Prior to the release of the grading bond, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Planning Director or his/her designee for approval. In addition, the report shall be submitted to at least one of the repositories mentioned in Mitigation City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Development Services Division
As necessary during
grading and
construction activities
Prior to release of grading
bonds
Proof of Monitoring and Salvage
Report(s) or on-site inspection
Withhold release of
grading bonds

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Measure CR-7 and other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.
for each phase of
development

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

Loose, compressible residual soil, non-engineered onsite fill, colluvium, alluvium, landslide debris, older alluvium and weathered bedrock shall be removed from fill areas prior to placement of fill and shall be removed from shallow cut areas, where exposed at finish grades.

Guidelines to determine the depth of removals are presented below; however, the exact extent of the removals must be determined in the field during grading, when observation and evaluation of the greater detail afforded by those exposures can be performed by the Geotechnical engineer and/or Engineering Geologist.

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

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

Generally, these artificial fills range from a depth of 3 to 20 feet. Local areas of undocumented fill associated with previous geotechnical investigations are not plotted on the map. Other fills, including roadway fills and trench backfill, are not mapped due to their localized extent and minor thickness. Removals shall extend below the undocumented fill until competent materials are encountered. • Alluvium/Colluvium (map symbol Qal): All alluvium deposits exposed at existing or cut grades shall be entirely removed prior to fill placement. These deposits range in thickness from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet. Ginter and Associates recommends that all alluvial and colluvial soils below proposed fill areas and in cut areas be removed to expose competent bedrock or terrace deposits. Anticipated average removal depths for alluvium/colluvium areas are expected to vary to an estimated maximum thickness of 35 feet.

Groundwater was not encountered during PSE's subsurface investigation within the alluvium onsite. However, access was limited and certain alluvial areas could not be investigated such as within Krooner Canyon. If "saturated" alluvium is encountered that possesses a degree of saturation of 85% of more and is consistent with depth to bedrock, consideration may be given to leaving the saturated alluvium in-place, provided that settlement time-delay consequences are acceptable to the owner. If saturated alluvium is encountered and is going to remain in-place, an additional liquefaction investigation may be required and dynamic settlement recommendations for those areas will likely change. • Older Alluvium (Qoa): All older alluvium shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock.

Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to about 20 feet.

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading
Plan check; As needed during
grading activities
Review of engineering reports/
plans; On-site inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities