Exhibit 5 - Planning and Housing Commission Staff Report for SP2025-0001.pdf — Corona City Council, July 1, 2026 (part 6 of 10)

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
concrete floor slab-on-grade. The moisture barrier shall be properly installed, lapped and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Punctures and rips shall be repaired prior to placement of sand. At a minimum, this moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of 10- millimeter thick polyethylene (“Visqueen”), lapped and sealed, and placed mid-height within a 4-inch coarse sand layer. This moisture/water vapor retarder shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The following recommendations are based on the tentative guidelines by the American Concrete Institute (ACI, April 2001) to reduce the potential moisture/water vapor intrusion in concrete slab-on-grade. Based on Ginter & Associates’ review of available literature, it appears that the ACI procedure would be more effective to help reduce potential moisture/water vapor migration up through concrete slab-on-grade.

Recommendations based on the ACI guidelines are presented below:
• The moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of high strength polyethylene membrane and shall meet or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder shall consist of “Moistop Plus” (Fortifiber Building Products Systems) or “Vapor Block” VB 15 (Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor retarder shall be underlain by a capillary break comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer. The gravel layer shall be placed and compacted on approved soil sub-grade.
• The membrane shall be placed on approved gravel layer and properly lapped and sealed. Membranes intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains shall be properly wrapped around the penetrations and sealed. All punctures and rips in the membrane shall be repaired prior to placement of concrete, following manufacturer’s recommendations. The vapor retarder shall be installed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E-1643, and in conformance with the installation procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
• To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low shrinkage mix design) shall be used for the slab construction, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer.

The moisture/water vapor protection for concrete slab-on-grade shall be selected based on cost and construction considerations, and considering potential future problems resulting from improper and uncontrolled landscape irrigation practices.

Regardless of the moisture/water vapor retarder option selected, it should be emphasized that proper control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to the structure is of paramount importance.

Mitigation Measure GEO-13: Driveways. Driveway concrete slabs shall be 5 inches thick (minimum) with no. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid-height. The slab may be placed directly on properly prepared sub-grade. No moisture barrier is required under driveway slabs.

City of Corona
-Building Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-14: Exterior Flatwork. Exterior concrete flatwork (e.g. Sidewalks, walkways) shall be 4 inches thick (minimum), with no. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height and placed on properly prepared subgrade. Hardscape areas within two feet of the descending slopes shall include a thickened edge deepened to provide a minimum five (5) feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face.

City of Corona
-Building Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-15: Sub-Grade Pre- Saturation. Prior to concrete placement, the soil sub- grade shall be thoroughly wetted to about 12 inches in depth at a moisture condition of about 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content.

City of Corona
-Building Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-16: General. Interior floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, shall be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions, potential settlements and soil expansion. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc. Shall be established by the project structural engineer.

The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only.

More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure GEO-17: Retaining Walls
• Foundations: Retaining wall foundations may be supported on either compacted engineered fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock/fill transition is encountered, the bedrock portion shall be over- excavated minimum 2 feet and replaced with approved compacted fill. Alternatively, a cold joint shall be constructed in both the footing and the wall. Footings may be designed in accordance with the foundation design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Report when embedded at least two feet below lowest adjacent grade. Footings located on or at top of slopes shall be deepened, as necessary, to provide minimum lateral setback between footing and slope faces in accordance with CBC requirements.
• Lateral Earth Pressures: The earth pressures acting on retaining walls depend primarily on allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure.

The following lateral earth pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:

Wall Condition Backfill Type
Lateral Earth Pressure (Equivalent Fluid
Pressure) (pcf)
Level 2:1 (H:V)
Active (Cantilever) Sandy Soils 40 65
The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (i.e. traffic, construction equipment, footings, etc.) shall be included in the wall design. If the wall is free to deflect, 33 percent of the maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of wall shall be used in the design. • Backfill: Retaining wall backfill shall consist of predominantly granular non-expansive soils. The backfill shall extend within a 45-degree plane from the wall footing. Retaining wall backfill shall be mechanically compacted to minimum 90 percent of the applicable laboratory maximum density and performed under the observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. No jetting, ponding, or flooding shall be permitted. No backfill shall be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are attained. • Backfill Drainage: The wall design shall include waterproofing and weep holes or sub-drains or back- drains, as appropriate, for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. If on-site soils are utilized for wall backfill, the design shall include a prefabricated drainage blanket (such as Miradrain 2000, or equivalent). At a minimum, sub-drains shall consist of 4-inch diameter, perforated Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of ¾-inch (maximum) rock, or approved alternate. This permeable material shall be enveloped in Geofabric consisting of Mirafi 140 or equivalent. The pipe and trench bottom shall be sloped at a gradient of 2+ percent to a suitable discharge outlet. Sub-drains placed behind retaining walls shall be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to backfill placement.

City of Corona
-Building Division
- Development Services Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-18: Soil Corrosion. The previous geotechnical consultants, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., performed preliminary testing and indicated that the site soils are corrosive to metals. Therefore, representative finished grade samples shall be tested for corrosion suites (sulfate, chloride, pH and resistivity) upon completion of grading. It may be necessary to retain a corrosion engineer for consultation.

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
As needed during site
grading and
construction
As needed during grading and
construction activities
Review of test results; Halt grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-19: Utility Trench Backfill
• Bedding material shall consist of on-site sandy or imported materials exhibiting a San Equivalent (S.E.) value of 30 or greater.
• The on-site soils are considered suitable for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic materials and oversize rocks.
• Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 4 inches and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on ASTM: D1157. Care shall be taken not to damage utility lines.
• Utility trenches shall not be located within the influence of footings. This is defined as a zone located below the footing and a line sloping at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) outward from the outside edge of City of Corona
-Building Division
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
footings. If utility lines are located within the zone of footings, the backfill shall be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction or slurry backfilled (minimum 1-1/2 sack cemented sand mix. • To reduce potential water migration into building sub- grade through the granular bedding/shading layer and/trench backfill, utility trenches shall be backfilled with the onsite finer grained materials or sand-cement slurry for minimum 3 feet length at their entry points. • Trenches in fill soils and alluvial deposits greater than 4 feet in depth shall be shored or sloped back as required by the local regulatory agency, the state of California Division of Industrial Safety Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements.

Mitigation Measure GEO-20: Asphalt Concrete Pavement. Preliminary asphalt concrete pavement sections for the planned streets in the development were developed utilizing the Caltrans method of design and the structural section design guide for California cities and counties. The following recommended pavement sections were computed assuming an “r” value of 30 for site soils compacted as sub-grade material, and assumed traffic indices. The actual “r” value will depend on the soil conditions exposed at the planned street sub-grade elevations. During rough grading, “r” value testing shall be performed on the pavement sub-grade soils to confirm the pavement design basis. Further analysis and evaluation are necessary if the design traffic index and the sub-grade “r” value are different from those used in Ginter & Associates’ analyses.

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

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

3.0 4.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0

9.0 12.0

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

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and construction
activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading or
building permit; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-21: Site Drainage. All roof and surface drainage shall be directed away from structures and their appurtenances and slopes to approved drainage facilities. Ponding of water shall be avoided. For graded soil areas, a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from structures shall be maintained. The drainage patterns designed by the project civil engineer shall be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure or, if altered, shall be replaced with a properly designed area drain system. Irrigation activities at the site shall be monitored and controlled to prevent overwatering. Planter areas adjacent to structures shall be avoided. If utilized, such planters shall include measures to contain irrigation water and prevent moisture migration into walls and under foundations and slabs-on-grade.

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check;
As needed during site
grading and
construction
Plan check; As needed during
grading and
construction activities
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit or Certificate of
Occupancy; Halt
grading and
construction activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-22: Slope Planting, Irrigation And Maintenance. General guidelines for slope planting, irrigation and maintenance are shown below:
a) Slope planting shall consist of appropriate drought resistant vegetation as recommended by the Landscape Architect. Landscaping of slopes shall be completed as soon as possible and properly maintained. b) The property owner is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of installed irrigation systems. Leaks shall be repaired immediately. Sprinklers shall be adjusted to provide maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Over-watering with consequent excessive runoff and ground saturation shall be avoided.
c) If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use shall be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. d) All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down- drains, and any other drainage devices that have been installed shall be maintained and cleaned.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once during plan check;
As needed prior to
issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy
Plan check; As needed prior
to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit or Certificate of
Occupancy; Notify HOA
of violation

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
e) If rodent activity is present, the property owner shall undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. This shall be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. f) Water shall not be allowed to flow over the constructed or natural slopes. This may require the construction of berms or ditches along the top of slopes, if such devices are not in place.

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

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check
for each phase of
development
Plan check for each phase of
development
Review of engineering
reports/plans
Withhold grading
permit

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

City of Corona
- Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of building permits
Plan check Review of plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold grading
permit

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: For Drainage Management Area C, the final engineering for the drainage of Area C shall include a concrete impact basin energy dissipater and rip-rap pad and shall be designed in accordance with City standards.

The outlet velocity shall be at or below the existing condition. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

City of Corona
-Development Services Division
Once during plan check Plan check Review of plans Withhold grading and/or building permit

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project Design Feature LU-1: The project applicant will survey and post the location of the private property boundary line where it abuts NFS lands within the project area.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Prior to occupancy of
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
of development
Visual inspection of project site
boundary adjacent to CNF Forest
Lands.

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

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Building Division
During grading and
construction
Note on plans. Prior to
issuance of construction
permits/ Regular site
inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-2: Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses.

City of Corona
-Building Division
During grading and
construction
Note on plans. Prior to
issuance of construction
permits/ Regular site
inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-3: Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.

City of Corona
-Building Division
During grading and
construction
Note on plans. Prior to
issuance of construction
permits/ Regular site
inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-4: The use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall be minimized (i.e., use of drills, jackhammers).

City of Corona
-Building Division
During grading and
construction
Note on plans. Prior to
issuance of construction
permits/ Regular site
inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-5: The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure NS-6: Barriers such as, but not limited to, plywood structures of flexible sound control curtains shall be erected between the proposed project and the adjacent existing residences to the northeast and west, to minimize the amount of noise to the maximum extent feasible during construction.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Public Works Div.

Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits/ During grading
and construction
Note on plans. Prior to
issuance of construction
permits/ Regular site
inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-7: All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Public Works Department, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Building Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits/ During grading
and construction
Prior to issuance of
construction permits/ Regular
site inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-8: Adjacent land uses within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified about the estimated duration and hours of construction activities at least 30 days before the start of construction.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once at least 30 days
prior to start of
construction activities
for each phase of
development
At least 30 days prior to start
of construction activities for
each phase of development
Verify proof of mailing Withhold grading
and/or building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure 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:
 Flyrock mitigation measures may include: soil cover, leaving alluvial materials in place over materials to be blasted, and/or blast mats.
 Crushed rock (i.e., 3/8”) should be used for stemming materials  Drill cuttings are not acceptable.
 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:

City of Corona
-Fire Department
Prior to and during any
blasting-related events
Prior to issuance of grading
permits requiring blasting
activities and a blasting
permit, and during blasting
activities
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold grading
and/or building
permit(s)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
 Prior to the commencement of any blasting, a pre-blast survey of the conditions of all existing property and aboveground utilities located within 1500 feet of any potential blasting areas shall be conducted or as specified by the City of Corona, whichever is a lesser distance.  Prior to the commencement of any blasting, notification of neighbors withing 1,500 feet of the blasting area shall be made via first class mail or hand delivery of written notice.  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.  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.
 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.
 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.

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.

PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features including, but not limited to roadway design to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; driveway and fire lane width; turning radii inside and outside; grades/elevations; adequate on- site space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing and locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; availability of adequate firefighting water flow; and approved building materials.

City of Corona
-Fire Department
-Building Division
Once at plan check and
prior to issuance of
building permits for
each phase of
development
Plan check and prior to
issuance of building permits
for each phase of
development
Review project plans and conduct
site inspections
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the “Fire Facilities Fund” as amended in Chapter 3.36 of the CMC to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD.

City of Corona
-Fire Department
-Building Division
Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Confirm fee payment Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.

City of Corona
-Planning Division
-Fire Department
Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Review of plans to confirm radio
site provided, and acceptance/
verification testing in the field
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.

City of Corona
-Building Division
-Public Works Dept.

Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Confirm fee payment Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority City of Corona
-Building Division
Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Confirm fee payment or land
dedication
Withhold building
permit(s)

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
shall determine whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.
-Public Works Dept. each phase of
development
Mitigation Measure PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the CNUSD.

City of Corona
-Building Division
Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Confirm fee payment Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080 of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.

City of Corona
-Building Division
-Public Works Dept.

Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Confirm fee payment Withhold building
permit(s)

TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Intersection 3 – Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue: If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Review project plans; on-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-2: Intersection 4 - Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation shall be installed. Intersection improvements shall include:
1) restriping of the eastbound shared left-through lane and the exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an exclusive left- turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane and 2) restriping of the westbound shared left-through lane and the exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane.

City of Corona
-Public Works Dept.

Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Review project plans; on-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Intersection 10 - Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for five-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City.

City of Corona
-Public Works Dept.

Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Review project plans; on-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Intersection 11 - Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City.

City of Corona
-Public Works Dept.

Once prior to issuance
of building permits for
each phase of
development
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each phase of
development
Review project plans; on-site
inspection
Withhold building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-5: Roadway Segment 2 – Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then the Applicant shall improve this roadway segment to a 4-Lane Secondary Roadway to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

City of Corona
-Public Works Dept.

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

City of Corona
-Utilities Department
-Building Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy for each
phase of development
Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Verify fee payment Withhold Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Utilities Department prior to approval of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

City of Corona
-Utilities Department
Prior to the issuance of
any demolition or
construction permit
Prior to the issuance of any
demolition or construction
permit.

Copy of receipt or contract
provided by applicant to
Municipal Operations Division
Withhold demolition or
construction permit
Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: In order to facilitate on- site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction activities.

City of Corona
-Public Works Dept.

Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits/ During grading
and construction
Prior to issuance of
construction permits/ Regular
site inspections and upon any
received complaints
Review of construction
documents/O n-site inspection
Withhold issuance of
construction permits/
Issuance of Stop work
notice until rectified
Mitigation Measure UTIL-5: Waste Diversion. The project Applicant shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City of Corona Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. The City shall ensure that the project proponent implements the waste diversion plan objectives. These requirements shall be specified in the City of Corona
-Planning Division
Once prior to issuance
of Certificate of
Prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for each phase
Review of CC&Rs/On- site
inspection
Withhold issuance of
Certificate of

SKYLINE HEIGHTS
Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Page 4 ends

Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date/Initials
Sanctions for NonCompliance
final architectural plans to be approved by the City of Corona Planning and Building Divisions prior to issuance of building permits.
-Building Division Occupancy for each
phase of development
; As needed during
operation
of development; As needed
during operation
Occupancy/ Notify HOA
of non- compliance

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 i
Table of Contents
Page

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................................1-1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................................2-1

3. BASIS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................3-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................................................4.A-1 B. Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................................................................4.B-1 C. Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................................................................4.C-1 D. Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................................................................4.D-1 E. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................................................4.E-1 F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..............................................................................................................................................4.F-1 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...............................................................................................................................4.G-1 H. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................................4.H-1 I. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................................................4.I-1 J. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................................4.J-1 K. Population, Housing, and Employment......................................................................................................................4.K-1 L. Public Services ......................................................................................................................................................................4.L-1 M. Transportation ...................................................................................................................................................................4.M-1 N. Utilities and Service Systems..........................................................................................................................................4.N-1 O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.O-1

5. ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................................................................................................5-1

6. OTHER MANDATORY CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................6-1

7. DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES ...................................................................................................7-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters/Scoping Meeting Comments Appendix B – Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Appendix D – Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix E – Cultural Resources Assessments
Appendix F – Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report Appendix H – Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan Appendix I – Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix J – Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ii
Appendix K – Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix L – Water Study, Recycled Water Study, and Sewer Study List of Figures
Page
2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ...........................................................................................................................................2-3 2-2 Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Uses .......................................................................2-4 2-3 City of Corona Sphere of Influence ...........................................................................................................................2-7 2-4 West Sphere of Influence Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................2-8 2-5 West Sphere of Influence - County of Riverside Zoning ..................................................................................2-9 2-6 Proposed Annexation Area .......................................................................................................................................2-10 2-7 Tentative Tract Map 36544 ......................................................................................................................................2-13 2-8 Landscape Plan – Northerly Portion of Skyline Heights ..............................................................................2-17 2-9 Landscape Plan – Southerly Portion of Skyline Heights...............................................................................2-18 2-10 Open Space Concept Plan ..........................................................................................................................................2-19 3-1 Related Projects Map .....................................................................................................................................................3-7

4.A-1 Existing Site Photos ....................................................................................................................................................4.A-3

4.A-2 Existing Site Photos ....................................................................................................................................................4.A-4

4.A-3 Visual Simulation #1 ...............................................................................................................................................4.A-17

4.A-4 Visual Simulation #2 ...............................................................................................................................................4.A-18

4.A-5 Visual Simulation #3 ...............................................................................................................................................4.A-19

4.A-6 Visual Simulation #4 ...............................................................................................................................................4.A-20

4.B-1 Boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Federal Planning Areas ..4.B-3

4.B-2 Background Inhalation Cancer Risk for Project Site Area ..........................................................................4.B-4

4.C-1 Habitat Map Including Annexation Area ...........................................................................................................4.C-3

4.C-2 Coulter’s Matilija Poppy ..........................................................................................................................................4.C-13

4.C-3 Jurisdictional Feature Map ....................................................................................................................................4.C-14

4.C-4 Habitat Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................................4.C-31

4.C-5 ACoE Feature Impacts .............................................................................................................................................4.C-32

4.C-6 CDFW Feature Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................4.C-33

4.C-7 Compensation Parcel ...............................................................................................................................................4.C-43

4.C-8 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impacts ...................................................................................................................4.C-44

4.E-1 Regional Fault Map of Southern California.......................................................................................................4.E-7

4.E-2 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Project Area .......................................................................................................4.E-8

4.E-3 Project Site Relative to Recent Fault Investigations. ................................................................................. 4.E-11

4.E-4 Riverside County Liquefaction Zones .............................................................................................................. 4.E-12

4.E-5 Fault Setback Zone .................................................................................................................................................. 4.E-19

4.G-1A Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan – Northerly Half of Skyline Heights ..............................................4.G-9

4.G-1B Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan – Southerly Half of Skyline Heights ........................................... 4.G-10

4.H-1 Santa Ana Region Watershed Map .......................................................................................................................4.H-3

4.H-2 Existing Site Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................4.H-7

4.H-3 Groundwater Basins ...................................................................................................................................................4.H-9

4.H-4 Proposed Site Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................4.H-29

4.H-5 Preliminary WQMP Site Plan ...............................................................................................................................4.H-33

4.H-6 Proposed Storm Drain Facilities ........................................................................................................................4.H-34 List of Figures (Continued)
Page
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 iii

4.I-1 Skyline Trail Alignment ...........................................................................................................................................4.I-13

4.I-2 Regional and Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................4.I-14

4.J-1 Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................................................................................... 4.J-7

4.M-1 Study Intersections and Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................4.M-5

4.M-2 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ..........................................................................4.M-6

4.M-3 Existing A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................4.M-9

4.M-4 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 4.M-10

4.M-5 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................................................................4.M-11

4.N-1 Existing Facilities Plan ..............................................................................................................................................4.N-5

4.N-2 Existing Reclaimed Water Facilities Plan ..........................................................................................................4.N-9

4.N-3 Construction Phasing ..............................................................................................................................................4.N-35

4.N-4 Proposed Water Facilities Plan ...........................................................................................................................4.N-41

4.N-5 Preliminary Sewer Layout ....................................................................................................................................4.N-45 List of Tables
Page
3-1 Related Projects List.......................................................................................................................................................3-4

4.A-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.A-23

4.B-1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary .........................................................................................................................4.B-6

4.B-2 Descriptions of Air Pollutants ................................................................................................................................4.B-8

4.B-3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .......................................................................................................4.B-11

4.B-4 Construction Duration ............................................................................................................................................4.B-20

4.B-5 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day) ....................................................................................................4.B-23

4.B-6 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ..............................................................................................................4.B-28

4.B-7 Operational Emissions (Summer) .....................................................................................................................4.B-29

4.B-8 Localized Significance Analysis (Construction)........................................................................................... 4.B-33

4.B-9 Localized Significance Analysis (Operational) .............................................................................................4.B-34

4.B-10 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.B-38

4.C-1 Vegetation Communities ..........................................................................................................................................4.C-5

4.C-2 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities ....................................................................................................4.C-29

4.C-3 Impacts to State Streambeds and Federal Drainage Features ................................................................4.C-30

4.C-4 General Plan Consistency Analysis ....................................................................................................................4.C-36

4.C-5 Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian/Riverine Areas ..................................................................................4.C-42

4.C-6 Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian Habitat ...................................................................................................4.C-45

4.E-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4.E-27

4.F-1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................4.F-18

4.F-2 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..........................................................................................4.F-19

4.F-3 General Plan Consistency Analysis ....................................................................................................................4.F-20

4.G-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.G-14

4.H-1 Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from the Project Site ..........................................................................4.H-2

4.H-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Peak Flows ....................................................................................4.H-28

4.H-3 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.H-36

4.I-1 Comparison of the Proposed Annexation to Required LAFCO Consideration Factors ..................4.I-16 List of Tables (Continued)
Page
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 iv

4.I-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis .....................................................................................................................4.I-20

4.J-1 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................................. 4.J-5

4.J-2 Existing Noise Level Measurements from Noise Study ................................................................................ 4.J-6

4.J-3 Land Use Compatibility Matrix .............................................................................................................................4.J-10

4.J-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels. .............................................................................................................4.J-16

4.J-5 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels....................................................................................................4.J-17

4.J-6 Exterior Noise at Nearest Offsite Sensitive Uses from Project Construction ....................................4.J-17

4.J-7 Project Traffic Noise Contributions ....................................................................................................................4.J-19

4.J-8 General Plan Consistency Analysis .....................................................................................................................4.J-22

4.K-1 Existing Population, Housing, and Employment Summary .......................................................................4.K-2

4.K-2 Population, Housing, and Employment Projections .....................................................................................4.K-3

4.K-3 Job/Housing Ratio Projections a............................................................................................................................4.K-3

4.K-4 Regional Housing Growth Needs of the City of Corona ...............................................................................4.K-5

4.K-5 Proposed Project Population, Household, and Employment Impacts Between the Years of 2008 and 2035 .........................................................................................................................................................................4.K-8

4.K-6 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.K-10

4.K-7 Cumulative Population, Housing, and Employment Generation ..........................................................4.K-11

4.L-1 Fire Incident Types, Counts, and Average Response Times ...................................................................... 4.L-3

4.L-2 Existing Parks Near the Project Site ....................................................................................................................4.L-5

4.L-3 General Plan Consistency Analysis ....................................................................................................................4.L-20

4.M-1 Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity .............................4.M-2

4.M-2 Study Intersections and Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................4.M-7

4.M-3 Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) .................................. 4.M-13

4.M-4 Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) ............................. 4.M-14

4.M-5 Level of Service Criteria For Roadway Segments (V/C Methodology) .............................................. 4.M-15

4.M-6 Project Trip Generation Rates and Forecast................................................................................................4.M-18

4.M-7 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya..................................... 4.M-26

4.M-8 Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya ................................ 4.M-29

4.M-9 Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya ................................ 4.M-31

4.M-10 Consistency Analysis with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City’s Circulation Element ... 4.M-37

4.N-1 Current and Projected Water Supply (AFY) .....................................................................................................4.N-2

4.N-2 Amount of Groundwater Pumped by the City of Corona (AFY) ...............................................................4.N-3

4.N-3 Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped by the City of Corona (AFY) Annual Groundwater Pumped from Basina (AFY).........................................................................................................4.N-4

4.N-4 Demand Projections ...................................................................................................................................................4.N-8

4.N-5 Supply and Demand Comparison – Normal Year ........................................................................................4.N-11

4.N-6 Supply and Demand Comparison – Single Dry Year ..................................................................................4.N-12

4.N-7 Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 1 ..................................................................4.N-13

4.N-8 Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 2 ..................................................................4.N-14

4.N-9 Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Year No. 3 ..................................................................4.N-15

4.N-10 Metropolitan’s Current and Planned Supply Programs (AFY) ..............................................................4.N-16

4.N-11 Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY) ..............................................................................................4.N-18

4.N-12 Water Reclamation Facilities ...............................................................................................................................4.N-19

4.N-13 Disposal of Non-Reclaimed Wastewater ........................................................................................................4.N-19

4.N-14 Proposed Infrastructure Improvements ........................................................................................................4.N-33

4.N-15 Water Demand Summary ......................................................................................................................................4.N-37

4.N-16 Reservoir Storage Requirements .......................................................................................................................4.N-38

4.N-17 Proposed Sewage Flows ........................................................................................................................................4.N-43 List of Figures (Continued)
Page
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003
v

4.N-18 General Plan Consistency Analysis ...................................................................................................................4.N-50

4.N-19 Estimated Cumulative Water Demand ............................................................................................................4.N-53

4.N-20 Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation ..........................................................................................4.N-56

4.N-21 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ....................................................................................................................4.N-59

4.O-1 LESA Significance Ratings ........................................................................................................................................4.O-7 5-1 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Project .......................5-5 5-2 Alternatives’ Ability to Meet Project Objectives ..............................................................................................5-33

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003) for the Skyline Heights Project (proposed project or project) has been prepared by PCR Services Corporation on behalf of the City of Corona (City or Lead Agency) to: 1) identify the proposed project’s impacts on the environment; 2) discuss alternatives to the proposed project; and 3) propose mitigation measures that will offset, minimize or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act1(CEQA) and Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act,2both of which regulate the preparation of EIRs. This Executive Summary has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15123.

This Draft EIR has been prepared to evaluate comprehensively the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. The Draft EIR addresses the short-term and long-term effects of the project on the environment, and evaluates the potential for the project to cause direct and indirect growthinducing impacts as well as cumulative impacts. As appropriate, mitigation has been identified for those impacts determined to be significant. The Draft EIR also analyzes alternatives to the proposed project that would substantially reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project.

The environmental review process for the proposed project is normally a three-step process governed by CEQA. The first step is for the Lead Agency, the City of Corona, to determine whether a project is exempt from CEQA review. The City has determined that this project is not exempt. As permitted under CEQA Guidelines (§15060(d)), if an EIR is clearly required for a project, the City may skip initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR. As the City has determined the preparation of an EIR is clearly required for the project, it elected to prepare the DEIR without preparation of an Initial Study. To assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, the following issues have been addressed in this Draft EIR:
1 California Environmental Quality Act, as amended January 1, 2013, §§21000–21189.3, Public Resources Code, State of California. 2 Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, as amended January 1, 2013, §§15000–15387, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, State of California.

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population, Housing, and Employment
Public Services
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
Executive Summary December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-2

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

3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
In addition to a summary of the significant effects that would result from implementation of the proposed project, this EIR includes proposed mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce or avoid such effects. CEQA Guidelines §15123(b)(2) requires that areas of controversy known to the City be stated in the EIR summary. The following discussion identifies issues raised by other agencies and the public during the 30-day public comment period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). a. Notice of Preparation
Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public for a 30-day period commencing February 4, 2014 and ending March 5, 2014. However, copies of the NOP were subsequently re-distributed to public agencies due to mailing issues, and consequently the public comment period was extended to March 10, 2014. The purpose of the NOP was to formally communicate the City’s intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the proposed project, and to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. A brief description of the proposed project was included in the NOP, along with graphics depicting the location of the proposed project and the proposed improvements. The NOP indicated that the City of Corona determined that there is substantial evidence that significant effects may occur from the project, thereby necessitating the preparation of an EIR. The EIR addresses the following topical areas with potentially significant impacts as identified in the NOP: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Cumulative Impacts. The NOP is provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters, of this Draft EIR. b. NOP Comments
As noted above, the NOP was distributed to the public and various public agencies on February 4, 2014 in order to receive input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be provided in this EIR. In an effort to ensure comments were accurately recorded, the City requested that all comments be submitted December 2015 Executive Summary
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-3
in writing by either providing written comments by mail or via e-mail. Comments on the scope and content of the EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Federal Agencies
United States Department of Agriculture
State Agencies
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional Agencies
Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Local Agencies
Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency Orange County Department of Public Works
Organizations
Southern California Edison
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Individuals
Mark German
Steve Ford
Brian Mowcomber
Dwight Woodward
Mark and Shelley Drew
c. Public Scoping Meeting
The NOP included notification that a public scoping meeting would be held to further inform public agencies and other interested parties of the proposed project and to solicit input regarding the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting was held on March 4, 2014 at 6:30 P.M. in the Grand Boulevard Room of the City of Corona Public Library located at 650 South Main Street, Corona, California 92882. The meeting was held in a workshop format and provided interested individuals, groups and public agencies the opportunity to Executive Summary December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-4
understand the proposed project and to provide oral and written comments to the City regarding the scope and focus of the Draft EIR. Public comments received at the Scoping Meeting are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. d. NOP and Public Scoping Meeting Comments The following list summarizes the environmental concerns raised by public agencies, organizations, or individuals in response to the NOP or provided at the public scoping meeting (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR section in which the analysis is provided). All NOP and Scoping Meeting comments received are contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

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

4. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. Following is a summary of the impacts associated with the proposed project that were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. These impacts are also described in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.

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

5. ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “describe the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which will feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The CEQA Guidelines direct that selection of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.

As described in detail in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR, three alternatives to the project were identified, which include a No Project Alternative and two reduced density/intensity alternatives. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. The three identified alternatives, as well as the identified environmentally superior alternative, are summarized below.

Executive Summary December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-6
a. Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
This Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not occur. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed annexation of the 394.8-acre annexation area would not occur, and construction of 292 singlefamily residential units within the 270.9-acre project site also would not occur. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped state and no residential development or infrastructure improvements would be implemented on-site. However, as noted in previous chapters of this Draft EIR, the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project would still be implemented, which would result in limited physical changes along the northeastern boundary of the project site. b. Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 2, the Reduced Density Alternative, would result in the annexation of the proposed annexation area into the City of Corona as well as the development of a single-family residential neighborhood within the 270.9-acre project site, but at a density consistent with the existing Rural Residential I land use designation prescribed in the City of Corona General Plan for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, which allows for single-family residential uses between 0.2 and 0.5 dwelling units per acre. Thus, this Alterative would allow for development of up to 136 single-family dwelling units on the 270.9-acre project site, or an overall density of approximately 0.5 dwelling units per acre, with residential lots clustered throughout the project site (as under the proposed project) in order to minimize site disturbance. It is anticipated that given the topography of the project site, substantial grading would still be required to accommodate the development, which would include grading for residential lots, building pads, graded slopes, roadways, water tank(s), and other improvements, but the physical extent and intensity of earthmoving operations would be incrementally reduced under this Alternative. This Alternative is intended to decrease the overall development footprint of the proposed project, which would result in reduced landform alteration and urban development that is visible from surrounding viewpoints, including public trails and designated scenic roadways. Although reduced in terms of overall intensity, this Alternative would result in a similar suite of roadway and other related infrastructure improvements, though the size and capacity of such facilities could be incrementally reduced relative to the proposed project. c. Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative
The Phase III Only Alternative is being proposed in order to address the significant unavoidable impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character that would occur under the proposed project. The Phase III Only Alternative involves the development of single-family residential uses with a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size, as under the proposed project, but only within the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon. This development pattern is identical to Phase III improvements under the proposed project, and would only require infrastructure improvements to serve that portion of the project site, with the remaining property south of Mabey Canyon being left in its current undeveloped condition. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in the development of up to 45 single-family residential units and associated infrastructure including streets, water and sewer facilities, storm drains and water quality BMPs, landscaping, lighting, and other improvements. It should be noted that given the existing topography within the Phase III portion of the project site, extensive soil excavation and removal would be required to prepare the site for urban development, which would substantially increase the number and frequency of haul truck trips to and from the site. By comparison, under the proposed project the cut soil December 2015 Executive Summary
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-7
material from the Phase III area would be utilized as fill material elsewhere within the project site, as no off- site soil import or export would be required. Under this Alternative, it is assumed that the entire proposed annexation area is annexed into the City of Corona, but only the Phase III potion of the 270.9-acre project site would be developed with urban uses.
d. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative is determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although Alternative 1 is considered the Environmental Superior Alternative, this Alternative would not satisfy any of the identified project objectives, as it would not provide any improvements to the project site (housing units or related infrastructure) or achieve any of the other project benefits.

As discussed in Chapter 5 of this Draft EIR, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all reduce the severity of the majority of project-related impacts. However, only Alternatives 1 and 3 would fully eliminate the significant unavoidable aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, including impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate impacts associated with all but three remaining environmental topics (historic resources, housing growth and employment growth), as no development would occur under this Alternative.

However, Alternative 3, the Phase III Only Alternative, would at least partially achieve all of the 11 stated project objectives, as shown below in Table 5-2, but would only fully achieve six of them. Although this Alternative would not provide nearly as much housing, infrastructure, open space, and other improvements on-site as under the proposed project, it would still provide additional single-family housing stock within the City which would be contiguous with existing single-family residential development and future development along the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Therefore, Alternative 3 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, Alternative 3 would not dedicate as much land or contribute as many fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway based on the substantial reduction in development intensity and lack of physical development south of Mabey Canyon along the proposed Foothill Parkway Extension corridor. Alternative 3 would also not provide as many strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system, provide as many water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City, or provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents within areas south of Mabey Canyon. Lastly, the Phase III Only Alternative would not help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County or meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan to the extent the proposed project would, as it would only provide approximately 15 percent of the residential units on the project site.

Executive Summary December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-8

6. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section provides a summary of impacts, mitigation measures, and impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures associated with development of the proposed project. The table also indicates applicable mitigation measures that would be implemented by the project, as necessary. The summary is provided by environmental issue area below in Table ES-1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

December 2015 Executive Summary
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-9 Table ES-1
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
A. Aesthetics
Impact 4.A-1: Construction
and operation of the proposed
project would permanently
alter the viewshed at the
project site and views of scenic
resources in the project area.

Therefore, the project would
result in a significant and
unavoidable impact relative to
views and scenic vistas.

Potentially Significant All feasible mitigation – including clustering and compliance with state and local development codes – have been incorporated into the project. There are no additional mitigation measures available that could reduce the significance of impacts to the scenic vistas, or the visual character and quality of the site.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact 4.A-2: Although the
proposed project would alter
the foothills of the Santa Ana
Mountains, long-distance
views of the mountains from
Chase Avenue would remain.

There are no trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic
buildings designated in the
area that would be affected by
the project. Nonetheless, due
to the substantial modification
of on-site topography and
introduction of urban uses into
an existing undeveloped area,
impacts to scenic resources are
considered significant and
unavoidable.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-10 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.A-3: Implementation
of the proposed project would
alter the topography of the
foothills of the Santa Ana
Mountain. In addition, the
existing views would be
altered with the development
of 292 single-family
residences. While the project
would incorporate project
design features to minimize
impacts, such as the clustering
of residences, the project
would alter the visual
character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.

Therefore, the project would
result in a significant and
unavoidable impact to the
visual character and quality of
the site.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact 4.A-4: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not create substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect views in the area.

Therefore, the project would
result in less than significant
impacts with regard to light
and glare.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.A-6: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the General Plan,
Specific Plan and Municipal
Code) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating
aesthetic impacts. This impact
is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-12 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
B. Air Quality
Impact 4.B-1: Project
implementation would not
conflict or obstruct
implementation of the
SCAQMD AQMP. Thus, the
project would result in a less
than significant impact.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.B-2: The project would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.

The project would generate
construction and operational
emissions that would not
exceed the regional
significance thresholds.

Therefore, construction and
operation of the project would
result in less than significant
impacts.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-13 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.B-3: The project
would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under
an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors). The regional
significance analysis for
construction and operational
emissions demonstrates that
emissions would be below the
regional significance
thresholds. Therefore, the
project would not contribute to
a cumulative impact according
to this criterion and impacts
would be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.B-4: Implementation
of the project would not
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations during
operational or construction
activities. Construction and
operation of the project would
not result in emissions that
exceed the localized
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-14 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
significance thresholds. The
project would not cause or
contribute to the formation of
CO hotspots. Construction and
operation of the project would
not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial sources of TAC
emissions. Therefore,
construction and operation of
the project would be less than
significant.

Impact 4.B-5: The project
would not create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial
number of people. Therefore,
odors associated with project
construction and operation
would be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.B-6: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the General Plan and
Municipal Code). This impact
is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-15 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
C. Biological Resources
Impact 4.C-1: The project site
has been reported in CNDDB to
support intermediate mariposa
lily (in 30 locations) and
chaparral Nolina (within a
small portion of the project
site), and was observed to
support Coulter’s matilija
poppy. Since the intermediate
mariposa lily and chaparral
nolina species were not
relocated during surveys conducted by GEC, no
significant impacts to these
species are anticipated.

Nevertheless, intermediate
mariposa lily is a covered
species under the WRC MSHCP
and payment of the MSHCP
Development Fee would
reduce impacts to less than
significant. Chaparral nolina is
not covered under the WRC
MSHCP but was only recorded
within a small portion of the
project site; the record in
CNDDB occurs over a large
area outside of the project site.

As such, any impacts would be
considered adverse but not
significant and would not
Potentially Significant Vegetation and Sensitive Species Vegetation and General Wildlife
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The Project impact areas and avoidance areas shall be flagged or fenced prior to grubbing of any vegetation or jurisdictional drainage features to prevent incursion into unsurveyed or avoided areas.

Qualified biological monitor(s) shall conduct periodic monitoring during construction as deemed appropriate, to ensure the flagging or fencing remains intact and no incursions into avoided areas occurs, and to flush any wildlife within the project impact footprint away from work areas. The following BMPs shall be adopted prior to and during construction to ensure biological resources within open space areas surrounding the proposed project will not be adversely affected:

The project impact footprint shall be surveyed, staked, and flagged and/or fenced (e.g., with flagging tape, snow fencing or silt fencing) by a surveyor and the boundary shall be confirmed by a qualified biological monitor. The construction site manager shall ensure that the fencing is maintained for the duration of construction and that any required repairs are completed in a timely manner.

Maintenance activities shall not commence until 0700 hours and shall be completed before dusk each day to the extent feasible.

If any wildlife is encountered during maintenance activities, the wildlife shall be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and shall be flushed or herded in a safe direction away from the work area(s).

Any open trenches shall be covered at the end of each work day in a manner to prevent the entrapment of wildlife, or adequately ramped to provide an animal escape.

Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-16 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
require mitigation. Coulter’s
matilija poppy is conditionally
covered under the WRC
MSHCP and the project would
impact approximately 40
percent of the identified
population. Impacts would be
considered adverse but not
significant due to the large
distribution and number of
locations of this species.

Furthermore, mitigation
measures proposed for the
project would also benefit
avoided populations of
Coulter’s matilija poppy by
minimizing direct and indirect
impacts, including Mitigation
Measures BIO-1, BIO-4, and
BIO-5, in addition to Project
Design Features PDF BIO-1
through PDF BIO-9 to address
edge effects pursuant to WRC
MSHCP requirements for
urban/wildlands interface.

These measures would also
reduce potential impacts to
unobserved or new growth of
sensitive species identified as
having a moderate or high
potential of occurring in the
survey area. Focused surveys
conducted for burrowing owl
If night-time maintenance is required, lighting shall be directed away from native vegetation and should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to complete the maintenance activities.

Staging or storage areas shall occur outside of any drainages. Storage of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to fuel, paint, stains, pesticides, herbicides, solvents, and oils shall not be permitted within 50 feet of any habitat area to be retained by the project. During construction, disposal of such material shall occur in a controlled area that is physically separated from potential storm water runoff.

Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated within or adjacent to ponded or flowing water within any drainages shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that, if introduced to water, could be harmful to aquatic species.

All vehicles and equipment shall be maintained in proper working condition to minimize fugitive emissions and accidental spills from motor oil, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other fluids or hazardous materials. Maintenance and refueling of construction equipment shall be limited to areas specified as appropriate by the project biologist.

All fuel or hazardous waste leaks, spills, or releases shall be stopped or repaired immediately and cleaned up at the time of occurrence. All spill material removed shall be disposed of at an appropriate off-site landfill. Maintenance vehicles shall carry appropriate equipment and materials to isolate and remediate leaks or spills, such as a spill containment kit.

Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, or generators, located within or adjacent to ponded or flowing water within drainages shall be positioned over drip pans.

No equipment maintenance shall be done within or adjacent to December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-17 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
and least Bell’s vireo were
negative. Mitigation Measures
BIO-2 and BIO-3 are proposed
to ensure no future impacts
will occur to migratory and
nesting birds and burrowing
owl, respectively, prior to
construction. With the
implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures,
which would provide
protection to the special-status
species if they are found on the
project site, impacts would be
reduced to a less than
significant level. Mitigation
measures are also proposed to
address indirect impacts.
ponded or flowing water within drainages where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter into the water.

No waste, cement, concrete, asphalt, paint, oil, or any other substances used during maintenance activities which could be hazardous to aquatic life, or other organic or earthen material, shall be allowed to contaminate the soil and/or enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into ponded or flowing water within any drainages. Any of these materials placed where they may affect ponded or flowing water shall be removed immediately upon observation. When operations are completed, any excess non-native materials shall be removed from the work area.

All litter and pollutions laws shall be followed. All refuse created or brought on site by personnel or contractors shall be placed in covered containers, removed from the site daily, and disposed of properly.

All exposed/disturbed areas shall be stabilized to the greatest extent possible using appropriate, industry standard erosion control measures. No maintenance activities shall occur during active precipitation. If any precipitation is forecasted, the work area shall be secured at least one day prior so no materials enter or wash into any drainages.

Field crews shall maintain the speed limit on posted roads and limit vehicle/truck speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour.

Sensitive Wildlife
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: 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 Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-18 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey will be conducted within three days prior to clearing and/or grading, by a qualified biologist. If present, a nesting bird plan will be developed and implemented to include appropriate measures to mitigate the potential impacts, such as maintaining a buffer area until fledging has occurred as determined appropriate by the biologist. Active bird nests should be mapped utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) (getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest) and a buffer will be flagged around the nest (typically 300’ for most species, 500’ buffer for raptor nests, as determined appropriate by the biologist). Construction should not be permitted within the buffer areas while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Once fledging has occurred no further avoidance is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance (construction) by an experienced burrowing owl biologist. The surveys will be conducted as close to the actual construction initiation date as possible.

If burrowing owls are determined present following the pre-construction survey, occupied burrows shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible, following the guidelines in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 7, 2012) including, but not limited to, avoiding occupied burrows during the nesting and non-breeding seasons, implementing a worker awareness program, biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging burrows for avoidance with visible markers. If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, acceptable methods may be used to exclude burrowing owl either temporarily or permanently, pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that shall be prepared and approved by CDFW. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Invasive Vegetation Control
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: All heavy equipment shall be washed, December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-19 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
particularly the wheels and under carriage, prior to entering the project site from other construction sites to prevent the spread of weedy species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: 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 will be maintained in a weed/noxious weed-free condition.

Impact 4.C-2: Implementation
of the proposed project would
result in significant impacts to
four riparian habitat alliances
and a sensitive natural sage
scrub community. However,
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation measure
would reduce potentially
significant impacts to a less
than significant level.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5 above, as well as the following mitigation measures. Jurisdictional Drainage Features
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: To mitigate for the loss of 1.57 acres of non- wetland federal jurisdictional drainage features (“waters of the U.S. [WoUS]) due to project construction, the project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (via issuance and implementation of a Nationwide permit or Individual permit) to replace affected WoUS at a ratio specified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at no less than a 1:1 basis, through off-site acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on- or off-site creation, enhancement or reestablishment of WoUS or a combination of these options.

The exact ratio shall be based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mitigation guidelines pursuant to their approval. 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 other than those pre-approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: To mitigate for the loss of 1.57 acres of non- wetland federal jurisdictional drainage features (“waters of the U.S. [WoUS]) due to project construction, the project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (via issuance and implementation of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification) Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-20 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
to replace affected WoUS at no less than a 1:1 basis, as specified by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, through a combination of off- site acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on- or off-site creation, enhancement or reestablishment of WoUS. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment pursuant to their approval. 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 other than those pre-approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: To mitigate for the loss of 6.17 acres of streambed and riparian vegetation due to project construction, the project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (via issuance and implementation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 1600) to replace affected streambed at no less than a 1:1 basis, as specified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, through a combination of off-site acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on- or off-site creation, enhancement or reestablishment of the streambed. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment pursuant to their approval. 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 other than those pre-approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: The project proponent shall employ all standard best management practices (BMPs) to prevent discharges from entering avoided waters of the U.S. and streambed with associated riparian vegetation during construction. BMPs, such as the following, shall be enforced (see also BIO-1):
the use of erosion control or sedimentation prevention methods, such as fiber rolls, sand bags, rice mats, straw wattles or similar measures, where appropriate;
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-21 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, antifreeze and other toxic substances.

Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Mitigation shall be provided for the 6.17 acre of Riparian/Riverine impacts at no less than a 1:1 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 report that provides a functions and values analysis pursuant to the requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project Applicant proposes mitigation at a ratio of 2:1 for riparian habitat and 1:1 for riverine habitat in the form of off-site mitigation with the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD). In the event mitigation with the RCRCD is not finalized for any reason, equal or greater value mitigation shall be provided in the form of one or more of the following: off-site acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement or reestablishment. If off-site 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, 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 on-site mitigation is proposed as an alternative mitigation, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HHMP) will be developed and provided for review and approval by the local and regulatory agencies and shall include, at minimum, the following:

Quantitative success criteria (vegetation cover and species richness); Recommendations for soil preparation;
A plant palette to include native species occurring on the project site, such as coast live oak and Coulter’s matilija poppy if feasible; Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-22 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Planting methods;
Irrigation and maintenance requirements; and
A long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring plan with remedial measures.

Impact 4.C-3: As the project
site does not contain any
federally protected wetlands,
no significant impacts to
wetlands would occur.

However, the project site
supports jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. and riparian scrub
and streambed. Thus,
compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements and
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation
measures would reduce
potentially significant impacts
in these regards to a less than
significant level.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 above. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.C-4: The site
contains vegetation suitable
for nesting birds. Therefore,
the project may result in
significant impacts on nesting
bird species that are protected
under the California Fish and
Game Code and the MBTA if
Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 above. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-23 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
removal, clearing, and/or
grubbing were to occur during
the general avian nesting
season (January 1 to
September 1). However,
implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-4 would reduce
impacts to a less than
significant level. Impacts to
regional wildlife movement are
less than significant and no
mitigation is required.

Impact 4.C-5: The project is
substantially consistent with
City policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources. Therefore, no
significant impact would occur.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Oak trees impacted by the project shall be replaced at no less than a 1:1 ratio in the landscape areas, as approved by the City of Corona.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.C-6: The project site
supports riparian/riverine
habitat that will be mitigated
as proposed in the DBESP
Report; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Applicant
would pay the required MSHCP
development mitigation fee.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-12, as well as the mitigation measure below:

Mitigation Measure BIO-11: The ten (10) acres of natural habitat identified as a compensation parcel adjacent to Forest Service land shall be preserved in perpetuity pursuant to a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism to prevent future development.

Less Than
Significant
D. Cultural Resources
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-24 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.D-1: No historic
resources are located on the
project site. As such, there is
no potential for the project to
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines. No impact would
occur in this regard.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.D-2: Implementation
of the project would not cause
a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a known
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines.

However, there is potential for
the project to impact
previously undiscovered
archaeological resources
during construction activities
associated with the project.

This potentially significant
impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level with
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation measure.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation. If during cultural resources monitoring the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the qualified archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated.

Native American monitors from affected Tribes shall observe all project- related grading activities, and the treatment of any recovered artifacts shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of a Treatment Agreement between affected Tribes. The Treatment Agreement shall be executed by the consulting Tribes prior to the issuance of grading permits for each construction phase. All cultural materials that are collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility which Less Than
Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-25 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79 for federal repositories. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation.

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

Impact 4.D-3: Implementation
of the project could directly
impact paleontological resources during construction
activities. This potentially
significant impact would be
reduced to a less than
significant level with
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation measures. Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure CR-2: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified vertebrate to develop a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for excavations into the Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation, the Upper Cretaceous Williams Formation, and Paleocene Silverado Formations. 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 pre-construction 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.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: 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 Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-26 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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.

Mitigation Measure CR-4: 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 Community Development Director or his/her designee for approval. In addition, the report shall be submitted to at least one of the repositories mentioned in Mitigation Measure CR-3 and other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.

Impact 4.D-4: In the unlikely
event human remains are
discovered during grading or
construction activities within
the project site, compliance
with State law (Health and
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-27 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Safety Code § 7050.5) (HSC §
7050.5) would be required and
would mitigate for potential
impacts to human remains.

Therefore, impacts related to
the discovery of buried human
remains would be less than
significant and no mitigation is
necessary.

Impact 4.D-5: Implementation
of the project would not
conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purposes of
avoiding or mitigating physical
impacts associated with
cultural resources. This
impact is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
E. Geology and Soils
Impact 4.E-1: Project
implementation could expose
people or structures to strong
seismic ground shaking,
seismic-related ground failure,
landslides and other ground
failure hazards. However,
adherence to the design and
remedial grading
recommendations of the
Potentially Significant 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 Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-28 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Geotechnical Report, as
required by Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 through GEO- 23, as well as compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements would reduce
such impacts to a less than
significant level.
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 December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-29 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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 Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-30 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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.

Landslide Debris (Qls): All landslide debris that could adversely affect the proposed development shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock. Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to about 29 feet, but may range up to around 35 feet in depth.

Removals Along Grading Limits: Removals of unsuitable soils shall be required prior to fill placement along the grading limit. A 1:1 projection, from toe of slope or grading limit, outward to competent materials shall be established, when possible. Where removals are not possible due to grading limits, property line or easement restrictions, removals shall be initiated at the grading boundary (property line easement, grading limit or outside the improvement) at a 1:1 ratio inward to competent materials.

Where this reduced removal criterion is implemented, special maintenance zones may be necessary. Affected areas shall be established, minimally, as a 1:1 projection from suitable removal bottom to finish ground surface.

This condition is mainly expected in the slope areas. Where the projection intersects the face of the slope, the potential for distortion of the slope in response to post-grading settlements exists and provisions for future maintenance of such slopes shall be provided.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Slope Stability and Remediation Cut Slopes: The majority of cut slopes have been designed at a slope ratio of 2:1. The Engineering Geologist shall observe cut slopes and cut slope stabilization backcuts during grading. Modifications to the recommendations presented herein will likely be required based upon December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-31 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
conditions exposed by grading.

Williams Formation (KW): Cut slopes within the Williams Formation may expose adverse bedding that shall require remediation. The cut slope superjacent to Lots 278 and 279 is anticipated to require replacement with a buttress fill. Probable buttresses are anticipated for the cut slope above Lots 261 through 267 and the cut slope below the WQMP Basin and Lots 247 through 255, as depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2 (pocket) of the Geotechnical Report.

Ladd Formation: Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation may expose adverse bedding that shall require remediation. The majority of the cut slopes should expose bedding dipping into the slope or at an angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes (greater than 60 degrees). Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation that expose bedding dipping into the slope or at an angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes are expected to be grossly stable; however, the final determination shall be made based on exposed conditions during grading. Cut slopes within the Ladd Formation may expose conglomerate resulting in poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, producing a rough uneven surface. These cut slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Replacement of those slopes with compacted stabilization fills may be required. Future exploration and in-grading observation could reveal more favorable geology in these specific areas.

Alluvium/Colluvium: Cut slopes exposing alluvial/colluvial soils (Qal) shall require replacement with a drained stabilization fill. Typically, such corrective grading would be constructed with a minimum key width corresponding to one-half the full height of the superjacent slope, but not less than 15 feet. Minimum key depths at the toe shall be 2 feet. All stabilization fills shall be provided with a backdrain and outlet system as detailed in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report.

Silverado Formation: Cut slopes within the Silverado Formation are Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-32 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
expected to be grossly stable; however the final determination shall be made based on exposed conditions during grading. Cut slopes within the Silverado Formation may expose poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, which would produce a rough uneven surface.

These cut slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Replacement of those slopes with compacted stabilization fills may be required.

Fill Slopes: The majority of fill slopes on the project are designed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1. The highest fill slope is approximately 160 feet in height and located subjacent to Lot 68. Based on the results of the calculations, the 2:1 fill slopes 160 feet and less in height, when properly constructed with onsite materials, are expected to be grossly stable, as designed. Keys shall be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes where unsuitable soil removals do not accomplish a minimum key width of one- half the slope height plus bench widths or twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater. Minimum key depths at the toe shall be 2 feet. Due to grading limit restrictions, removals of unsuitable soils beyond the proposed toe may be limited; therefore, additional slope maintenance shall be expected in the areas where a 1:1 projection into approved materials cannot be achieved.

Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Subsurface Drainage. Canyon subdrains are proposed as depicted on Figures 1 through 7 of the Geotechnical Report and shall consist of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter pipes and shall be constructed in accordance with the details shown in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report.

Final determination of drain locations shall be made in the field. Outletting of subdrain systems shall require coordination with the Project Civil Engineer in determining suitable facilities to accept to drain water.

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-33 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Overexcavation. Where a transition of cut and fill occurs across a finished lot, it shall be necessary to overexcavate the bedrock portions and replace it with compacted fill. The depth of bedrock overecavation shall be equal to 1/3 the maximum fill depth (after removals) on the fill side of the transition. Anticipated transition lots are shown on figures 1-7 of the geotechnical report. Cut pads shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet to provide a uniform foundation material. Some highly expansive soils of the silverado formation may be encountered at grade in some areas. Consideration shall be given to increasing the overexcavation depth to mitigate for highly expansive soils, if warranted. Difficult excavation with a backhoe can be expected in some street areas. Ginter & associates recommends street overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill to facilitate utility emplacement in these street areas and driveways. Depths of overexcavation shall extend one (1) foot below the deepest utility line.

Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Fill Materials. Excavated on-site soils may be used as compacted fill. The fill materials to be used as compacted engineered fill shall be free of organics, debris, deleterious materials, and rocks over 6 inches maximum dimension, and must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or project geologist prior to use. Import soils, if required, shall be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer for suitability prior to delivery. Import soils shall be free of trash, debris or other objectionable materials. All import fill shall have engineering characteristics similar to the on-site soils.

Mitigation Measure GEO-6: Fill Placement, Moisture Conditioning, And Compaction. After approval of the over-excavation and prior to placement of any compacted engineered fill materials, the exposed removal bottoms shall be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches. The area shall then be moisture conditioned approximately 1 to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 (or 93) percent of the applicable maximum density. The planned development will involve deep fills in the canyon areas and side-hill fill slopes. In order to Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-34 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
reduce the amount of fill settlement, the fill shall be compacted to the minimum relative compaction shown below:

Fill Depth (Feet) Minimum Relative Compaction (ASTM: D1557) (%)
0 – 50 90
Below 50 93

Fill slopes shall also be constructed at the minimum relative compactions shown above, with the exception of the outer 3 feet of the slope face which can be placed at 90% relative compaction. Deep fill areas requiring 93% relative compaction are delineated in Plate VI of the Geotechnical Report.

Generation of oversized rock (over 8 inches in maximum dimension) from excavations in the bedrocks is anticipated. Oversize rock shall be placed in single file windrows not exceeding three feet in height and six (6) feet in width with a minimum equipment width (15 feet) separating each windrow or a rock blanket fill not exceeding two (2) to three (3) feet in height. Large erratic rocks shall be buried individually. Granular fill shall be thoroughly flooded in the rock voids and covered with a minimum two feet compacted fill blanket. Successive windrows shall be staggered and none shall be placed within 10 feet of finished grade or closer than 15 feet to compacted fill slope surfaces. Typical rock placement construction detail is provided in Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report. Placement of rock windrows shall be performed under the observation and recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

Fill materials shall be spread in thin lifts, moisture conditioned to about 1 to 2 percentage points over optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 (or 93) percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557. Each lift shall December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-35 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

The grading contractor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment in operation to achieve the required compaction. When necessary, earthmoving equipment may be utilized for compaction or temporarily halted in order to permit adequate compaction of fills.

Mitigation Measure GEO-7: Slope Construction

1. Care shall be taken during grading to prevent spillage of loose materials over slopes to remain natural. Should loose soil be spilled onto natural slopes by the grading contractor, removal of the loose fill shall be required.

2. Fill shall be properly benched into firm bedrock or compacted fill as directed by the Project Engineering Geologist and/or Geotechnical Engineer during grading. Typical benching shall include 4-foot verticals exposing approved, competent material (see Appendix D – Typical Benching Detail of the Geotechnical Report).

3. In order to minimize surficial slumps on compacted fill slopes, the following grading procedures shall be used:
a) Where possible, fill slopes shall be constructed by overfilling a minimum of three (3) horizontal feet and then trimming back to expose the dense inner core of the slope surface. Compacted fill slopes shall be back-rolled during construction at intervals not exceeding four (4) vertical feet. Care shall be taken to construct the slope in a workmanlike manner so that it is positioned at its designed orientation and slope ratio. Achieving a uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling must be avoided. Any add-on correction to a fill slope shall be done by overfilling the affected area in horizontal, compacted lifts which must be benched into the existing fill prism. The overfilled slope may then be trimmed to the design gradient.

Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-36 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
b) Where fill slopes are planned above natural slopes and cannot be overfilled and trimmed back, the slopes shall be rolled for the entire height of the slope with a sheepsfoot roller and then finished with a grid roller. If the desired compaction is not obtained in this manner, a vibratory sheepsfoot roller may be required. To be most effective, this equipment shall be anchored and manipulated from a side-boom tractor. In lieu of a grid roller, the slope may be track rolled with a John Deere 450, Caterpillar D-8 dozer or equivalent. To obtain the required compaction and appearance of the slope face, the soil moisture shall be maintained at above optimum from the time of mass filling to the completion of grid rolling.
c) The grading contractor shall take proper care to avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slopes during grading and during drainage terrace and down-drain construction. Fine grading operations for benches and down-drains shall not deposit loose trimmed soils on the finished slope surfaces. Loose soil materials shall require removal.
d) Seeding and planting of slopes shall proceed as rapidly as possible to achieve a well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. The type of vegetation and watering schedule shall be established by a landscape architect familiar with hillside maintenance.

December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-37 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure GEO-8: Earthwork Observations And Testing a) The site preparation, over-excavation, and earthwork shall be performed under the observation and testing by a representative of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Project Geologist.
b) The fill shall be tested at the time of placement to verify that the required compaction is achieved. c) The fill compaction shall be determined in the field by the Sand Cone Method (ASTM: D 1556) or Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM: D 2216), or other test method approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. d) During grading, an adequate number of field density tests shall be performed using approved test procedures in order to determine compliance of earthwork to the project requirements. The frequency of field density testing shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
e) Quality control testing performed to determine the acceptability of the fill compaction shall be based on the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557 test procedure.
f) Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable materials encountered during grading shall be brought immediately to the attention of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Deeper excavations may be required, should unsuitable soils be encountered locally, as determined by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist.

Mitigation Measure GEO-10: Foundation Design. The compacted engineered fill at the project site is anticipated to be low to medium soil expansion potential. Presented below are preliminary geotechnical criteria for design of building foundations, based on medium soil expansion potential for the on-site soils: Option 1 - Conventional Footing:

Allowable Bearing Pressure (1) = 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) Minimum Footing Depth (2) = 24 inches
Minimum Footing Width = Continuous: 12 inches
Isolated: 24 inches
Passive Soil Pressure (3) = 250 psf/ft.

Friction Coefficient = 0.30 (ultimate)
Minimum Footing Reinforcement = Four No. 4 bars, 2 each at top and bottom
Garage Door Grade Beam = 18 inches deep, Four No. 4 bars, Two each at top and bottom, tied into
foundation elements.
(1) The above value may be increased 250 psf for each additional foot exceeding the minimum embedment depth and/or width, subject to a December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-39 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
maximum of 2,500 psf. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for short term loading due to wind or seismic forces. (2) Footing depth is from lowest adjacent finished soil grade. Footings shall be deepened, as necessary, to provide setback distance from adjacent slope in conformance with CBC criteria.
(3) Value applies to level soil condition, and is subject to a maximum of 2000 psf.

Option 2 – Post-Tensioned Foundation:

If post-tensioned slab/footing system is selected for the subject project, the design may be based on the geotechnical criteria shown below for medium soil expansion potential. These are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.

Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -20
Equilibrium Suction = 3.6
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 5.1 feet
Edge Lift, ym = 1.1 inches
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 9.0 feet
Center Lift, ym = 0.47 inches
Minimum Footing Depth (Exterior) = 18 inches below adjacent grade
The above foundation criteria are based on medium soil expansion consideration only. Foundation design shall consider anticipated post- construction settlements, as appropriate. Foundation design details such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer considering medium soil expansion and Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-40 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
settlement potential provided below.

Mitigation Measure GEO-11: Foundation Settlement. Total static and differential post-construction settlements for footings designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria given below and supporting loads not exceeding the typical loadings for residential construction (column and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 3 kips/lineal foot, respectively) are not anticipated to exceed the values shown below. The settlement estimates shall be confirmed based on review of the foundation plans. Structures shall be designed for the following post-construction settlements: - Total settlement = 1 inch - Differential settlement = ¾-inch (*) (*) Between similarly loaded column footings and for continuous footings and slabs over a distance of approximately 30 feet.

General Remarks:
(i) Footing depths shall not be allowed to be affected adversely, such as through erosion softening, digging, landscaping, etc.
(ii) Where foundations encroach closer than five (5) feet horizontally from the flow line of drainage swales, the footing shall be deepened sufficiently to maintain the required embedment depth below the adjacent flow line. (iii) Foundation details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer, considering the loading and medium soil expansion potential. The footing and slab reinforcements recommended in the Geotechnical Report are minimum requirements.

More restrictive criteria based on structural design considerations or Code requirements shall govern.
(iv) Foundation excavations shall be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of reinforcement or concrete.

Mitigation Measure GEO-12: Slab-On-Grade. Recommended Minimum Criteria For Slab-On-Grade Are Shown Below:

Concrete Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs shall be 5 inches thick (minimum) and shall be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid height. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center shall be provided connecting floor slabs to footings. In order to minimize migration of moisture up the concrete slab from soil subgrade and damage to floor coverings, a moisture barrier/water vapor retarder is recommended beneath floor slabs as discussed hereinafter.

Moisture/Water Vapor Retarder for Concrete Slab-on-Grade: In order to reduce the potential for moisture/water vapor migration up through the slab and possibly affecting floor covering, a moisture/vapor retarder is recommended under concrete floor slab-on-grade. The moisture barrier shall be properly installed, lapped and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Punctures and rips shall be repaired prior to placement of sand. At a minimum, this moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of 10-millimeter thick polyethylene (“Visqueen”), lapped and sealed, and placed mid-height within a 4-inch coarse sand layer. This moisture/water vapor retarder shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The following recommendations are based on the tentative guidelines by the American Concrete Institute (ACI, April 2001) to reduce the potential moisture/water vapor intrusion in concrete slab-on-grade. Based on Ginter & Associates’ review of available literature, it appears that the ACI procedure would be more effective to help reduce Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-42 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
potential moisture/water vapor migration up through concrete slab-on- grade.

Recommendations based on the ACI guidelines are presented below:

The moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of high strength polyethylene membrane and shall meet or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder shall consist of “Moistop Plus” (Fortifiber Building Products Systems) or “Vapor Block” VB 15 (Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor retarder shall be underlain by a capillary break comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer. The gravel layer shall be placed and compacted on approved soil sub-grade.

The membrane shall be placed on approved gravel layer and properly lapped and sealed. Membranes intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains shall be properly wrapped around the penetrations and sealed.

All punctures and rips in the membrane shall be repaired prior to placement of concrete, following manufacturer’s recommendations. The vapor retarder shall be installed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E-1643, and in conformance with the installation procedures recommended by the manufacturer.

To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low shrinkage mix design) shall be used for the slab construction, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. The moisture/water vapor protection for concrete slab-on-grade shall be selected based on cost and construction considerations, and considering potential future problems resulting from improper and uncontrolled landscape irrigation practices. Regardless of the moisture/water vapor retarder option selected, it should be emphasized that proper control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to the structure is of paramount importance.

No moisture barrier is required under driveway slabs.

Mitigation Measure GEO-14: Exterior Flatwork. Exterior concrete flatwork (e.g. Sidewalks, walkways) shall be 4 inches thick (minimum), with no. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height and placed on properly prepared sub-grade. Hardscape areas within two feet of the descending slopes shall include a thickened edge deepened to provide a minimum five (5) feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face.

Mitigation Measure GEO-15: Sub-Grade Pre-Saturation. Prior to concrete placement, the soil sub-grade shall be thoroughly wetted to about 12 inches in depth at a moisture condition of about 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content.

Mitigation Measure GEO-16: General. Interior floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, shall be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions, potential settlements and soil expansion. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc. Shall be established by the project structural engineer. The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only. More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern.

Mitigation Measure GEO-17: Retaining Walls
Foundations: Retaining wall foundations may be supported on either compacted engineered fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock/fill transition is encountered, the bedrock portion shall be over-excavated Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-44 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
minimum 2 feet and replaced with approved compacted fill. Alternatively, a cold joint shall be constructed in both the footing and the wall. Footings may be designed in accordance with the foundation design criteria presented in the Geotechnical Report when embedded at least two feet below lowest adjacent grade. Footings located on or at top of slopes shall be deepened, as necessary, to provide minimum lateral setback between footing and slope faces in accordance with CBC requirements.

Lateral Earth Pressures: The earth pressures acting on retaining walls depend primarily on allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure.

The following lateral earth pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:

Backfill: Retaining wall backfill shall consist of predominantly granular non-expansive soils. The backfill shall extend within a 45-degree plane from the wall footing. Retaining wall backfill shall be mechanically compacted to minimum 90 percent of the applicable laboratory maximum density and performed under the observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. No jetting, ponding, or flooding shall be permitted.

Backfill Drainage: The wall design shall include waterproofing and weep holes or sub-drains or back-drains, as appropriate, for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. If on-site soils are utilized for wall backfill, the design shall include a prefabricated drainage blanket (such as Miradrain 2000, or equivalent). At a minimum, sub-drains shall consist of 4-inch diameter, perforated Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of ¾-inch (maximum) rock, or approved alternate. This permeable material shall be enveloped in Geofabric consisting of Mirafi 140 or equivalent. The pipe and trench bottom shall be sloped at a gradient of 2+ percent to a suitable discharge outlet. Sub-drains placed behind retaining walls shall be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to backfill placement.

Mitigation Measure GEO-18: Soil Corrosion. The previous geotechnical consultants, pacific soils engineering, inc., performed preliminary testing and indicated that the site soils are corrosive to metals. Therefore, representative finished grade samples shall be tested for corrosion suites (sulfate, chloride, ph and resistivity) upon completion of grading. It may be necessary to retain a corrosion engineer for consultation.

Mitigation Measure GEO-19: Utility Trench Backfill
Bedding material shall consist of on-site sandy or imported materials exhibiting a San Equivalent (S.E.) value of 30 or greater.

The on-site soils are considered suitable for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic materials and oversize rocks.

Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 4 inches and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on ASTM: D1157. Care shall be taken not to damage utility lines.

To reduce potential water migration into building sub-grade through the granular bedding/shading layer and/trench backfill, utility trenches shall be backfilled with the onsite finer grained materials or sand-cement slurry for minimum 3 feet length at their entry points.

Trenches in fill soils and alluvial deposits greater than 4 feet in depth shall be shored or sloped back as required by the local regulatory agency, the state of California Division of Industrial Safety Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements.

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

3.0 4.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0

9.0 12.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-15. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-50 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.E-4: On-site soils are
anticipated to have low to
medium expansion potential.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-52 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.F-2: The project
would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs. Therefore,
the project would result in a
less than significant impact.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.G-1: Project
implementation would result
in the development of the
currently largely undeveloped
site with 292 residences,
roads, landscaping, and
detention basins, which would
result in an increase in the use,
storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous
materials. During
construction, hazardous
materials, such as gasoline and
oil would be used. During
occupancy of the residences
household hazardous
materials, such as pesticides,
cleaners, paints, and pool
supplies would be used and
stored on site. Compliance
with applicable regulations
would reduce potential
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-53 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
significant impacts regarding
hazardous materials to a less
than significant level.

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

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

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-54 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.G-4: The site is
located approximately three
miles south of the Corona
Municipal Airport and no
private airstrips are located
within the vicinity of the site.

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

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

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.G-6: With the
implementation of the fuel
modification plan the project
would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 under Public Services below. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-55 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
involving wildland fires. Thus,
no significant impact would
occur with regard to wildland
fires with implementation of
applicable project design
features and mitigation measures. H. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.H-1: Construction
and operation of the project
would comply with all
applicable regulatory
requirements regarding water
quality. Compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of the project
design features, including
BMPs as part of the project’s
WQMP, would ensure that
construction and operational
water quality impacts would
be less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.H-2: The project
would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-56 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
lowering of the local
groundwater table level. As
such, impacts to groundwater
resources would be less than
significant.

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

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

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

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.H-4: Implementation
of the project would not
expose people and structures
to flood hazards since
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-57 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
residential pad elevation
would be approximately 25
feet higher than the streambed
flowline. In addition, the site is
not located within an area
subject to inundation from a
levee or dam failure. Given the
site location impacts from
seiches, mudflows, or tsunamis
would not occur. Therefore,
impacts related to flooding are
considered less than
significant.

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

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
I. Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.I-1: The proposed
project would not physically
divide established residential
communities in the vicinity of
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-58 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the project site. The
Construction Traffic
Management Plan would
relegate haul traffic to major
roadways and would not allow
construction parking or
staging in existing developed
areas. The focus of project
traffic at “P” Street would
reduce project traffic through
existing, adjacent residential
neighborhoods. No existing
uses would be removed and
existing access to Skyline Drive
and trails to the Cleveland
National Forest would be
retained. Impacts with respect
to the physical division of an
established community would
be less than significant.

Impact 4.I-2: The proposed
project would result in less
than significant land use
impacts with regard to
consistency with the CKH Act,
SCAG’s Regional
Comprehensive Plan, RTP/SCS
and Compass Blueprint Growth
Vision, and the City of Corona
General Plan. With the
approval of the requested
amendments to the General
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-59 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Plan existing inconsistencies
between the General Plan and
uses on the project site would
be resolved.

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

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

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

Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
J. Noise
Impact 4.J-1: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in temporary increases
in ambient noise levels and
expose people to temporary,
intermittent, and moderate to
high-level noise levels.

However, as the proposed
project would comply with the
City of Corona’s Noise
Ordinance, construction noise
impacts would be less than
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure NS-1: Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and Federal holidays.

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

Mitigation Measure NS-3: Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-60 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
significant. Nonetheless,
mitigation has been prescribed
to minimize the potential for
construction noise impacts at
the nearby noise sensitive
residential land uses. The
proposed project’s residential
uses would not result in a
substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without
the proposed project. Thus,
long-term operational noise
impacts would be less than
significant.
simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
K. Population, Housing, and Employment
Impact 4.K-1: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not induce substantial
population, housing, or
employment growth in the
project area beyond that
anticipated by SCAG
projections. Further,
implementation of the
proposed project would not
displace substantial numbers
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-62 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
of existing housing or people
and would not necessitate the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. These
impacts are considered less
than significant.

Impact 4.K-2: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan and
municipal code). This impact
is considered less than
significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
L. Public Services
Impact 4.L-1: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered government
facilities, need for new or
physically altered government
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features including, but not limited to roadway design to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; driveway and fire lane width; turning radii inside and outside; grades/elevations; adequate on-site space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing and locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; availability of adequate firefighting water flow; and approved building materials.

Mitigation Measure PS-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees Less Than
Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-63 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
or other performance
objectives for fire protection
and emergency medical
services. However, compliance
with applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of the project
design features and prescribed
mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant
impacts in these regards to a
less than significant level.
pursuant to the “Fire Facilities Fund” as amended in Chapter 3.36 of the CMC to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD.

Impact 4.L-2: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities, need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for police protection
and law enforcement services.

However, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.

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

Impact 4.L-3: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered government
facilities, need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives parks and
recreational facilities. Further,
the proposed project could
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility could occur or be accelerated, and the proposed project could include
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.

Less Than
Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-65 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment. However,
compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements and
implementation of the project
design features and prescribed
mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant
impacts in these regards to a
less than significant level.

Impact 4.L-4: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered government
facilities, need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for schools. This
impact is considered less than
significant with mitigation
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the CNUSD.

Impact 4.L-5: Implementation
of the proposed project could
result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered government
facilities, need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for library services.

This impact is considered less
than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080 of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.L-6: Implementation
of the proposed project could
conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the General Plan and
Municipal Code). This impact
is considered less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-7. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-67 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
M. Transportation
Impact 4.M-1: With
regard to construction, aside
from the nuisance traffic that
would occur as a result of
construction-related activities
(e.g., construction materials,
construction workers, etc.),
impacts resulting from
construction traffic would be
less than significant. With
regard to operation, the
project would add trips to the
transportation network. The
Existing With Project, 2020
With Project and 2035 With
Project would result in
significant impacts at the four
study intersections identified
in the table below during the
a.m. or p.m. peak hours. With
the implementation of
recommended mitigation
measures, the impacts would
be reduced to a less than
significant level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.M-2: Under Existing
With Project conditions, a
significant impact would occur
on Paseo Grande between
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure TR-5: Roadway Segment 2 – Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then the Applicant shall improve this roadway segment to a 4-Lane Secondary Roadway to the Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-68 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Ontario Avenue and Green
River Road if the project were
to be developed prior to the
completion of the Foothill
Parkway Extension. In the
event that were to occur, with
the implementation of a
mitigation measure, impacts
would be reduced to less than
significant. The project would
result in less than significant
impacts to roadway segments
under both Year 2020 and Year
2035 scenarios. In addition, all
of the roadways within the
subdivision have been
designed to accommodate the
average daily trips (ADT) that
would occur on each of the
segments. Therefore, no
mitigation measures would be
required.
satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

Impact 4.M-3: The project
would not result in the
realignment of any existing
streets thereby creating a
hazardous design feature.

With the implementation of
the project design features, the
proposed roadways within the
tract would provide adequate
sight access and would not
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-69 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
result in a substantial increase
in hazards. The roadway
design of the project would
result in less than significant
Impacts.

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

Potentially Significant Refer to Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-5. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.M-5: The
project would provide parking
within garages in each of the
single family residences. In
addition, parking would be
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-70 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
provided on some of the
proposed streets. Therefore,
the project would provide
sufficient parking in
compliance with the City of
Corona parking requirements.

Impact 4.M-6: The
project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities. As
such, impacts would be less
than significant.

Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
N. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.N-1: Implementation
of the proposed project could
require or result in the
construction of new on-site
and off-site water facilities or
the expansion of existing on- site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.

However, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP water connection fees as set forth in Section 13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC. Less Than
Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-71 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
implementation of the
prescribed mitigation
measures would reduce
potentially significant impacts
in these regards to a less than
significant level. Further, the
project site would have
sufficient water supplies
available to serve the proposed
project from existing and
proposed entitlements and
resources. Thus, impacts
regarding water supply and
water infrastructure would be
less than significant.

Impact 4.N-2: Implementation
of the proposed project could
require or result in the
construction of new on-site
and off-site wastewater
facilities or the expansion of
existing on-site and off-site
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

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

Less Than
Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-72 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
regards to a less than
significant level. Further,
implementation of the
proposed project would not
exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board or result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may
serve the proposed project,
that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments. Thus, impacts
regarding wastewater would
be less than significant.

Impact 4.N-3: Implementation
of the proposed project would
require or result in the
construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

However, compliance with
applicable regulatory
requirements and
implementation of project
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
December 2015 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-73 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
design features would reduce
potentially significant impacts
in these regards to a less than
significant level.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure UTIL-5: Waste Diversion. The project Applicant shall demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City of Corona Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. The City shall ensure that the project proponent implements the waste diversion plan objectives. These requirements shall be specified in the final architectural plans to be approved by the City of Corona Planning and Building Agency prior to issuance of building permits.

Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.N-5: Implementation
of the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the General Plan and
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Executive Summary December 2015
Table ES-1 (Continued)
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 ES-74 Description of Impact
Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the CMC). This impact is
considered less than
significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, corrections and additions to the Draft EIR, responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a December 2015 1. Introduction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-3
copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft EIR will be provided to the respective agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A – Notice of Preparation/NOP Comment Letters/Scoping Meeting Comments Appendix B – Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Appendix D – Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix E – Cultural Resources Assessments
Appendix F – Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report December 2015 1. Introduction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 1-7
Appendix H – Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan Appendix I – Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix J – Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information Appendix K – Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix L – Water Study, Recycled Water Study, and Sewer Study

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

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

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROJECT
SITE
N.A.P.

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

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

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

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

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

C. ANNEXATION, ZONING DESIGNATIONS, AND BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Corona Sphere of Inuence FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-3
Source: City of Corona, 2002.
0 2 Miles N
Project Site
Project Site
West Sphere of Inuence Exis ng Land Use FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-4
Source: City of Corona, 2015. 0 3800 Feet N
Project Site
West Sphere of Inuence Exis ng Zoning FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-5
Source: City of Corona, 2015. 0 N
Project Site
3800 Feet
Proposed Annexa on Area FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-6
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. N
December 2015 2. Project Description
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 2-11
Way to Paseo Grande at Green River Road. This would connect Sierra del Oro to south Corona and is expected to provide traffic congestion relief to existing east-west City roads, including Ontario Avenue and 6th Street. Connections to the new section of Foothill Parkway from both Border Avenue and Mangular Avenue, via Chase Drive, are also part of the overall Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544. Tentative Tract Map 36544 is illustrated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544. Tentative Tract 36544 includes numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets, and utilities. As Tenta ve Tract Map 36544 FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-7
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. N

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As relates to water facilities, the project would construct on- and off-site water pipelines ranging in size from 8 to 12 inches in diameter, upgrade the existing on-site Mabey Canyon Booster Pump Station to 1,340 gallons FIGURE Landscape Plan Northerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 2-8
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N FIGURE Landscape Plan Northerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 2-9
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N Open Space Concept Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 2-10
Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Basis for Cumulative Analysis December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 3-6
This page is intentionally blank.
7 6
5 8
4 3
2 1
9 32
23 30
31 24
28 26
27 25
29 22
21 19
18 17
20 16
1514
13 12
11 10
Project Boundary
Related Projects
FIGURE
Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2015. 0 1 2 Miles Skyline Heights Project
Related Projects Map
3-1
N.A.P.

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

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. AESTHETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Printing Office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington, DC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While construction would be temporary in nature, impacts to scenic vistas would be significant because of the location of the site in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and the associated viewsheds from adjacent residences and the Cleveland National Forest trails, including the Skyline Drive Trail. The site is located west of Chase Avenue, which is a designated scenic highway, and views to the Santa Ana Mountains from Chase Avenue would be altered during the construction of the project. Based on the significance thresholds provided above, construction of the project would result in a significant impact to visual resources since it would: (1) alter the existing natural viewshed, including changes in natural terrain; (2) alter the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate visual resources (e.g., natural topography and vegetation on the project site); (3) obstruct or permanently reduce visually important features (e.g., on-site natural terrain; and (4) result in long-term adverse visual changes or contrasts to the existing landscape as viewed from areas with high visual sensitivity (e.g., designated scenic roadways such as Chase Avenue and publicly accessible trails such as the Skyline Drive Trail). As such, although temporary, project-related grading and construction activities would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to views and scenic vistas.
(b) Operation
Implementation of the project would disturb the native vegetation, introduce ornamental and native vegetation, and substantially alter the existing topography of the project site. While the project would permanently alter the foreground views of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, the background views to December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-15
the Santa Ana Mountains would remain following project implementation. Upon completion, however, existing views of undeveloped land would be replaced with views of single-family residences. As shown below in Figure 4.A-3, Visual Simulation #1, the proposed project would be visible from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension looking south from Mabey Canyon. The future residences would be located at a higher elevation and thus would be visible on the hillside. The residences would be clustered and would be at different elevations and would step up the hillside. As designed, the residences would appear to step up the hillside, which would help to reduce the visual presence of the new homes from this vantage point. As shown in Figure 4.A-4, Visual Simulation #2, the foothills would screen the proposed subdivision from view within the residential subdivision located to the east of the site. As shown in Figure 4.A-5, Visual Simulation #3, the project would not substantially alter the background views of the foothills, but mid-distance views to the interior of the project site would be altered by project-related structures and landscaping. Nonetheless, the residences that would be developed would be located at a substantial distance from the roadway. As shown in Figure 4.A-6, Visual Simulation #4, the project would substantially alter the views of the foothills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent. The project would be developed in a hillside area within the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. The site has steep terrain and has elevations ranging from
945 feet to 1,730 feet AMSL. The 292 residences would
be generally clustered in the central portion of the site and the project would preserve visually significant slope banks and ridgelines in their natural state as natural
open space areas to the extent feasible. The project
would minimize the effects of grading by preserving
clusters of natural open space and having manufactures
slopes adjoin natural areas to help maintain the natural character of the hillsides. Retaining walls would be
developed to follow the topography and would be
designed with material and colors that blend in with the surrounding landscape. The manufactured slopes would
be landscaped to provide buffer zones and visual
interest. Drought tolerate species would be planted in
December 2015 4.A. Aesthetics
Table 4.A-1 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.A-25
Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
Minimize the size of flat development pads in
site grading to that necessary to accommodate
the building footprint and a reasonable amount
of useable outdoor space, as well as to assure
structural and site stability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
B. AIR QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE Boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and Federal Planning Areas
Skyline Heights Project 4.B-1
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2014. N Background Inhala on Cancer Risk for Project Site Area FIGURE Skyline Heights Project 4.B-2
Source: SCAQMD MATES III Carcinogenic Risk Interac ve Map. h p://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/ Accessed October 2014. 0 5 Miles N Inhalation Cancer Risk
is 274 per million
December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-5
(2) Local Air Quality
(a) Criteria Pollutants
The SCAQMD, which has divided the Basin into air monitoring areas, maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The project site is located in the Corona/Norco Area (i.e., Source Receptor Area [SRA] Number 22). The nearest monitoring station is in the City of Norco, though not all pollutants are measured at this station (only particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter [PM10] is monitored). As such, data for the other criteria pollutants were collected from the next monitoring station in closest proximity to the project site. The monitoring data are summarized in Table 4.B-1, Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data shows that during the past three years, the project area has exceeded the ozone, PM10, and fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) standards.
(b) Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. As part of MATES III, the SCAQMD prepared maps that show regional trends in estimated outdoor inhalation cancer risk from TAC emissions, as part of an ongoing effort to provide insight into relative risks. The maps represent the estimated number of potential cancers per million people associated with a lifetime of breathing air toxics (24 hours per day outdoors for 70 years). The project spans across two 2-kilometer (1.24-mile) grids as shown in Figure 4.B-2, Background Inhalation Cancer Risk for Project Site Area. As shown, the potential cancers per million people for these grid spaces are estimated at 230 and 329 per million. Generally, the risk from air toxics is lower near the coastline and increases inland, with higher risks concentrated near large diesel sources (e.g., freeways, airports, and ports). Areas with lower intensity development and fewer freeways also have relatively lower risks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest
pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease;
decreased exercise tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and lung disease;
impairment of central nervous system functions;
possible increased risk to fetuses; death.
8 Hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) c 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath
and chest tightness, during exercise or physical
activity in persons with asthma. Some population- based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles
show a similar association with ambient sulfur
dioxide levels. It is not clear whether the two
pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant
alone is the predominant factor.
3 Hour — 0.5 ppm
24 Hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm (for
certain areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm (for
certain areas)
December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
Table 4.B-2 (Continued)
Descriptions of Air Pollutants
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-9
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time CAAQS NAAQS a Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 Hours 50 µg/m3c 150 µg/m3 - Short-term exposure (hours/days): irritation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest
tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing
lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer
heart attacks and arrhythmias. - Long-term exposure: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology;
death.

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

Lead (Pb)
f 30-Day
Average

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-road mobile sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 402 – Nuisance: This rule states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-15
repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SCAQMD also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality analyses. The SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993, with section updates provided on the SCAQMD website) to help local governments analyze and mitigate project-specific air quality impacts. This handbook provides December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-17
standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses for CEQA documents prepared within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. In addition, SCAQMD has published two additional guidance documents— Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (June 2008) and Particulate Matter (PM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CalEEMod and Michael Brandman Associates, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the project:

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

Threshold 6: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (refer to Impact Statement 4.B-6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The installation of water-conserving fixtures or

2. Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014 December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-29
Impact 4.B-3 The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The regional significance analysis for construction and operational emissions demonstrates that emissions would be below the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact according to this criterion and impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts is based on a summary of projections analysis. This analysis considers the current CEQA Guidelines, which includes the recent amendments approved by the Natural Resources Agency and effective on March 18, 2010. This analysis is based on the 2003 and 2007 AQMPs. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. When concentrations of ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 exceed the ambient air quality standard, then those sensitive to air pollution (i.e., children, elderly, sick) could experience health December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-31
effects such as decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals, increased mortality risk, and risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, construction would result in short-term emissions of DPM. Determination of risk from DPM is considered over a 70-year exposure time. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a 70-year lifetime of exposure. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long- term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-33
at a location and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Compliance with these standards would reduce emissions of TACs during construction. Based on the temporary and short-term construction schedule and required regulatory compliance, construction impacts would be less than significant (b) Local Operational Impacts
(i) Operational LSTs
The SCAQMD has developed a set of mass emissions rate look-up tables that can be used to evaluate localized impacts that may result from operational-period emissions. If the on-site emissions from proposed operational activities are below the LST emissions levels found in the LST mass rate look-up tables for the project site’s SRA, then project emissions would not have the potential to cause a significant localized air quality impact.

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

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

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

These recommendations are assessed as follows.

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

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

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

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014; PCR Services Corporation, 2014
December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-35
Distribution centers: CARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The project would not result in a new distribution center. The project would also not be located within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. Uses within 1,000 feet of the project site include primarily residential, school, and commercial uses.

Fueling stations: CARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50- foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The project does not include any fueling stations. The project would also not be located within 300 feet of a gas dispensing facility.

The nearest gas dispensing facility is located to the north of the project site near State Route 91. Dry cleaning operations: CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, CARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, CARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The project would not result in a new dry cleaning operation. The project would also not be located within 500 feet of a dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. Based on a search of local dry cleaners in the project area, one dry cleaner is located in close proximity to the project site (Mr. Dry Clean located at 2621 Green River Road). According to facility permitting records from the SCAQMD’s Facility Information Detail (FIND) database, the dry cleaner is not permitted to use equipment containing carcinogenic TACs listed in SCAQMD Rule 1401, Table 1, as amended on March 4, 2005, which includes perchloroethylene.19 Based on the above analysis, the project would meet the CARB recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and substantial sources of air pollution. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors from project operation. (5) Odors
Threshold 5 Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Impact 4.B-5 The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Therefore, odors associated with project construction and operation would be less than significant.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting areas, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors Construction of the project would result in emissions of DPM and VOCs, which may be objectionable to some people. However, the project would comply with the CARB anti-idling regulation that limits idling to 5 minutes at any location and with SCAQMD rules that regulate the VOC content of architectural coatings.

Furthermore, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an 19 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Facility Information Detail (FIND), Facility ID 86193, http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/prog/search.aspx. Accessed October 2014.

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-36
objectionable level for a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would be expected to result in substantial odorous emissions and impacts would be less than significant. (6) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
Threshold 6 Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.B-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and Municipal Code). This impact is considered less than significant.

Table 4.B-10, General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies contained in Chapter 5, Environmental Resources, of the City’s General Plan relative to air quality. As discussed in Table 4.B-10, the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies. Furthermore, as discussed above under Impact 4.B-1, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable AQMP. As such, impacts related to consistency with applicable plans and regulations would be considered less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards made in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Therefore, the area of analysis for cumulative impacts on air quality is the entire Basin. As previously discussed, the project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.20 The mass regional emissions calculated for the project and presented earlier in this analysis would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds, which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The project would comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) during construction as well as all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 20 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states “A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. When relying on a plan or program, the lead agency should explain how the particular requirements in the plan or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project.”
December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-37

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Construction and operation of the project would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts. As such, no mitigation measures are required.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts related to air quality would be less than significant.

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-38 Table 4.B-10
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Environmental Resources - Air Quality
Goal 10.18 – Improve air quality conditions within
the Corona Planning Area by controlling point
sources, reducing vehicle trips, and striving to
achieve attainment of ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
carbon monoxide, and sulfate standards as enforced
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Consistent. A full analysis of construction and operational impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions was prepared for the proposed project, as provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, dated May 2014 (provided under separate cover). As indicated in the analysis of air quality impacts, the project would not conflict with applicable air quality plans, would comply with applicable CARB and SCAQMD rules and regulations, and would result in less than significant air quality impacts. The project would not conflict with measures to reduce on- and off-road construction emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment, comply with anti-idling provisions for heavy-duty trucks, implement fugitive dust control measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, and comply with building energy efficiency standards including the California Green Building Standards (see Section 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The project would also minimize air pollution by using of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials for paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particleboard, as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. Policy 10.18.3 – Incorporate the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Management Plans as conditions of approval for all
new development and re-development projects. Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.18 above. In addition, the project would comply with applicable and required SCAQMD rules and regulations to minimize construction and operational emissions.

Goal 10.20 – Reduce criteria air pollutant emissions
through more efficient land use planning and
construction practices.

Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.18 above. In addition, the project would increase the City housing stock and mix of housing while being adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (see Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR) and public services (see Section 4.L, Public Services of this EIR). The project would also be consistent with the City’s land use goals and policies to develop low-density residential neighborhoods in areas on the City’s southern periphery that preserve the rural and open space character of their setting (see Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR). The project would also minimize air pollution by using of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials for paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particleboard, as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. Policy 10.20.4 – Continue to create local employment opportunities by maintaining an
adequate supply of designated commercial and
industrial land supply, in accordance with the Land
Use Element.

Not Applicable. The project is not a commercial or industrial development. The project would neither hinder nor conflict with implementation of this policy.

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
Table 4.B-10 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-39 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 10.20.8 – Reduce particulate emission from
paved and unpaved roads, parking lots, and road
and building construction, as required by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District. Methods
include but are not limited to
Maintaining construction equipment engines in
good condition and in proper tune per
manufacturer’s specification for the duration of
construction
Turning off construction-related equipment,
including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles,
and portable equipment, when not in use for more
than five minutes
Encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel
construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural
gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline)
and low-emission diesel construction equipment
to the extent that the equipment is readily
available and cost effective
Using the electricity infrastructure surrounding
construction sites rather than electrical
generators powered by internal combustion
engines to the extent feasible
Implement dust control measures consistent with
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
403 – Fugitive Dust during the construction
phases of new project development
Apply water and/or approved nontoxic chemical
soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s
specifications to all inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas that have been inactive
for 10 or more days).

Replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as
quickly as possible
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations related to particulate emissions. Additionally, project-related emissions would not exceed the established regional and localized significance thresholds for particulate matter.

The project would implement measures to reduce on- and off-road construction emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment by complying with anti-idling provisions for heavy-duty trucks, implementing fugitive dust control measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Fugitive dust control measure consistent with Rule 403 include watering and/or use of soil stabilizers for disturbed areas and unpaved roads, the use of covers or sufficient freeboard space for haul trucks, replacing ground cover as soon as practicable, reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less, and using clean paved roads where practicable. Implementation of these measure would minimize particulate emissions from paved and unpaved roads, parking lots, and road and building construction.

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
Table 4.B-17 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-40 Goals and Policies Consistency
Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or
applying approved chemical soil binders to
exposed piles with 5 percent or greater silt
content
Watering active grading sites at least twice daily
Suspending all excavating and grading operations
when wind speed (as instantaneous gusts) exceed
25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period.

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

Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.18 above. In addition, the project would incorporate energy saving measures consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code. The project would reduce energy related to water use by installing water-conserving fixtures that would achieve at least a 20-percent reduction in indoor water use and moisture-sensing or other equivalent “smart” irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas. Common open space recreation areas would be planted with low-water plants that meet the California Department of Water Resources “Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species” (WUCOLS) low water use designation.

December 2015 4.B. Air Quality
Table 4.B-10 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-41 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 10.21.1 – Reduce the amount of energy
consumed by commercial and residential uses, as
recommended by the Southern California Air Quality
Management District. Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.18 and Goal 10.21 above. Policy 10.21.2 – Continue to require the use and installation of energy conservation features in all
new construction projects and wherever feasible,
retrofitting in existing and re-development projects.

Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.18 and Goal 10.21 above. Source: City of Corona General Plan; PCR Services Corporation, 2014

4.B. Air Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.B-42
This page intentionally blank.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION
This section describes existing biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur on the project site or in the site vicinity. In addition, a description of applicable regulations is provided. The analysis evaluates the potential impacts to biological resources that could occur in association with implementation of the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based on reports prepared by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC (GEC) and L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L), which are provided in Appendix D of this Draft EIR and listed below:

Habitat Assessment & Rare Plant Survey for Special Status Plants (Sensitive Plant Report), August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014a). Habitat Assessment & Focused Surveys for Burrowing Owl (Burrowing Owl Report), August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014b). Habitat Assessment & Focused Surveys for Coastal California Gnatcatcher (California Gnatcatcher Report), August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014c). Habitat Assessment & Focused Surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo (Least Bell’s Vireo Report), August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014 d). Jurisdictional Delineation, August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014) prepared by GEC (GEC 2014e). This report was updated by L&L (see below).

Habitat Assessment Including the Results of a Focused Burrowing Owl Survey and MSHCP Consistency Analysis (MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report), August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014f). Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation, August 1, 2013 (Revised April 23, 2014), prepared by GEC (GEC 2014g). This report was updated by L&L (see below).

A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA Report), March 2015, prepared by L&L (L&L 2015a). Jurisdictional Delineation (Jurisdictional Delineation Report), March 2015, prepared by L&L (L&L 2015b).

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation of Riparian/Riverine Habitat (DBESP Report), March 2015, prepared by L&L (L&L 2015c).

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
The project site is located within the City of Corona sphere of influence in unincorporated Western Riverside County and is proposed to be annexed to the City during the entitlement process. The project site is comprised of 270.9 acres of vacant land (“project site”) situated in the hills to the southwest of the City of

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-2
Corona, adjacent to the future alignment of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Within the project site boundary is an undeveloped 10-acre parcel which is considered “Not a Part” (NAP) and is owned by the U.S.

Forest Service. An additional 33-acres within the project site boundary will be graded by the Foothill Parkway project and the impacts have been considered in the Foothill Parkway documents; as such they are also excluded (i.e., NAP) from this analysis. Several properties, not part of the project described in this analysis, are part of the general plan amendment/annexation and as part of the process the City requested that technical reports address additional properties within the annexation boundary. While surveys of these areas occurred as a result of the general plan amendment/annexation study, no impacts are planned to these areas at this time and no impacts to these properties have been considered in this analysis. If development of these properties is planned in the future, additional studies and permits will be required. The 270.9-acre project site is located south of Wardlow Canyon Wash, west of the paved portion of Mabey Canyon Drive, west of Mangular Avenue, and north of the dirt road portion of Chase Drive. The Skyline Heights project is generally bounded to the north and east by single-family residences and on the south and west by the Cleveland National Forest and large privately owned parcels. The project site is an in-holding within the National Forest Service boundary. The project site consists of disturbed and undisturbed native habitat in the eastern foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, in addition to ornamental areas dominated by non-native species. The site is characterized by relatively gentle to moderately sloping terrain in addition to steep topography. Several canyons and ravines are present that convey natural drainage across the project site.

Portions of the project site have been disturbed by anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., fire roads, illegal access, and adjacent land uses). Elevations of the project site range between approximately 955 above mean sea level in the northernmost point of the site within Wardlow Canyon Wash, to 1,700 above mean sea level at the western most boundary. There are several existing canyons and ravines that run across the project site. Three of the canyons are designated USGS blue line streams. Wardlow Wash (Feature 7) and Mabey Canyon Wash (Feature 6) are two of those blue lined streams and are located in the northern portion of the project site. The other blue line stream is un-named (referred to in this report as Feature 3, previously referred to as F-1 by GEC) and is located in the central portion of the project site. Another feature, referred to in this report as Feature 1 (previously referred to as D-2 by GEC), is a jurisdictional drainage in the southern portion of the project site.

Several other smaller non-jurisdictional tributaries also occur on-site.

The project site is within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP), within Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP, as well as designated an MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
(1) Vegetation Communities
The project site consists of several vegetation communities, characterized as Chaparral Alliance, Coast Live Oak Woodland Alliance, Eucalyptus/Pepper Alliance, Grassland Alliance, Mulefat Alliance, Sage Scrub Alliance, Sycamore Alliance, and Willow Alliance. The annexation area does not support Grassland Alliance, Sycamore Alliance, or Willow Alliance communities, but also supports a detention basin Mulefat Alliance, Sage Scrub Alliances, Chaparral Alliances, Eucalyptus/Pepper Alliance and disturbed, as shown in Figure

4.C-1, Habitat Map Including Annexation Area. Vegetation community mapping and classification is according to the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2009), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Natural Communities (CDFW 2013) and the CNPS Vegetation Alliances of Western Riverside County, California (Klein and Evens 2006). Acreages are Habitat Map Including Annexa on Area FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-1
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-4
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-5
summarized in Table 4.C-1, Vegetation Communities, below. A description of all these vegetation communities is provided below.

Riparian and Woodland Habitat
Woodlands are dominated by woody trees and tall scrub species forming a continuous canopy with an understory consisting of low shrubs and/or a variable grassy ground layer. Riparian areas include those transitional areas adjacent to rivers, streams, estuaries, lakes, and depressional wetlands that characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from adjacent water bodies. The woodland plant communities observed in the study area include Quercus agrifolia Alliance (Coast Live Oak Woodland) and Platanus racemosa Alliance (California sycamore woodlands [also considered a riparian community). The riparian plant communities observed in the survey area include:

Baccharis salicifolia Alliance (Mulefat Scrub), Salix lasiolepis Alliance (Arroyo Willow thickets), and Platanus racemosa Alliance (California sycamore woodlands [considered both a woodland and riparian community).

Drainage features on the project site supporting riparian species include Features 1 (unnamed), 3 (unnamed), 6 (Mabey Canyon Wash), and 7 (Wardlow Wash); Features 2, 4 and 5 support upland habitats (see section (3) below for a description of the drainage features). The observed riparian and woodland habitats are described below.

Table 4.C-1
Vegetation Communities
Habitat
Existing Acreages in the Survey
Area
Existing Acreages in the Annexation
Area
Riparian and Woodland Habitats
Coast Live Oak Alliance 1.17 1.27
Mulefat Alliance 1.14 0.46
Sycamore Alliance 0.37 0
Willow Alliance 0.21 0
Subtotal 2.89 1.73
Upland Habitats
Chaparral Alliance 218.05 94.10
Grassland Alliance 5.54 0
Sage Scrub Alliance 41.59 16.79
Subtotal 265.18 110.89
Unvegetated/Altered Areas
Detention Basin 0 4.46
Disturbed 0 23.44
Eucalyptus/Pepper Alliance 2.82 0.18
Subtotal 2.82 28.08
Total Acreage 270.89 140.70
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-6
(a) Quercus agrifolia Alliance (Coast Live Oak () Woodland) 71.060.02 Coast live oak occurs as the dominant tree in the canopy. Poison oak is the dominant shrub in the understory. This Alliance occurs in the valley between the steep hills in the survey area (drainage Features F-1, F-3 and Mabel Canyon [F-6]). Quercus agrifolia is growing along and contributing to the riparian corridor as an intermittent canopy with a sparse ecotonal understory of riparian and Coastal Sage Scrub plant species: poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California Fuchsia (Epilobum canum), Douglas’ Nightshade (Solanum douglasii), an California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). This community is very limited in the survey area.
(b) Platanus racemosa Alliance (California Sycamore Woodland) 61.310.00 In the survey area, this riparian community is composed primarily of sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This plant alliance has a global and state ranking of G3S3 (Global and State Vulnerable (rare; typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or 3,001 to 10,000 individuals).

The community is very limited in the survey area, existing only in three small areas in drainage Feature F-3 and Mabey Canyon Wash (F-6).
(c) Salix lasiolepis Alliance (Arroyo Willow thickets) 61.201.01 In the survey area this riparian community is composed primarily of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). This plant alliance has a global and state ranking of G4 S4 (Global and State Vulnerable (Apparently secure (uncommon but not rare, but with some cause for long-term concern; typically having 101 or more occurrences, or 10,001 or more individuals). This community is very limited in the survey area, existing only in limited areas of drainage Feature F-3. (d) Baccharis salicifolia Alliance (Mulefat thickets) 63.510.00 In the survey area this riparian community is strongly dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The plant alliance has a global and state ranking of G5 S4 (Global Vulnerable (Secure (common, widespread, abundant, and lacking major threats or long-term concerns) and State Vulnerable (Apparently secure (uncommon but not rare, but with some cause for long-term concern; typically having 101 or more occurrences, or 10,001 or more individuals). This community is very limited in the survey area, existing only in a narrow band along Mabey Canyon Wash (F-6) and Wardlow Canyon Wash (D-7) and occurs sporadically in drainage Feature F-3 but was not mapped because it occurs in areas of less than 0.1 acres.

Upland Habitats
Chaparral Alliances
Chaparral is a type of shrubland that is dominated by evergreen shrubs with small, thick, leathery, dark green, sclerophyllous leaves. The shrubs are relatively tall, dense and adapted to periodic wildfires and drought. Many typical Coastal Sage Scrub species also grow intermixed as associates with chaparral species.

Chaparral typically occurs on moderate to steep south-facing slopes with dry, rocky, shallow soils, becoming more abundant with higher elevations where temperatures are lower and moisture is higher. The chaparral vegetation communities observed in the survey area include Adenostoma fasciculatum Alliance (Chamise Chaparral) and Adenostoma fasciculatum-Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (Chamise-Buckwheat-Chaparral), as described below.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-7
(e) Adenostoma fasciculatum Alliance (Chamise Chaparral) 37.101.00 Adenostoma fasciculatum Alliance is dominated by the evergreen shrub, Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise), This Alliance forms an intermittent to continuous canopy less than three meters tall, growing over a sparse herbaceous layer, especially in older stands. Adenostoma fasciculatum is usually associated with all slope aspects, but is commonly found on the drier south- and west-facing slopes and ridges, growing in very shallow soils (mafic-derived). To be classified as Adenostoma fasciculatum Alliance, the stand must have at least 60% cover by A. fasciculatum (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2009).

The shrub canopy associate species observed as important contributors to Adenostoma fasciculatum Alliance include: thickleaf Yerba Santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium), California buckwheat, Our Lord’s Candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and sugarbush (Rhus ovata). Several understory herbs listed below for Sage Scrub are expected as associates in Chaparral plant communities in the survey area. (f) Adenostoma fasciculatum-Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (Chamise-Buckwheat-Chaparral)

37.101.14
The Adenostoma fasciculatum-Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (Chamise-Buckwheat-Chaparral) 37.101.14 is also found in the survey area. In this community both species are consistently present in an open to intermittent shrub overstory, where Adenostoma fasciculatum is dominant or codominant with Eriogonum fasciculatum. Other species (e.g., Salvia mellifera, Arctostaphylos glauca, Encelia farinosa and Rhus ovata) often intermix in the shrub layer at low cover (Klein and Evens 2006).

Grassland Alliances
(g) Bromus Semi-natural Stands (California Annual Grassland) 42.026.00 California Annual Grassland consists of low herbaceous vegetation that is dominated by introduced annual grasses and is often associated with several native wildflower species, as well as introduced forbs. California Annual Grassland is typically dominated by annual grasses of various genera that are primarily of Mediterranean origin, including: Avena spp. (wild oats), Bromus spp. (bromes), and Hordeum spp. (barleys).

Species composition varies among stands, as the associate species may consist of several native herbs (or wildflowers). These wildflowers are important contributors to the ground layer, while emergent trees and shrubs may be present. Grasslands composed primarily of non-native species bromes (Bromus spp.), short- podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), filaree (Erodium spp.), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), doveweed (Croton setigerus), and deerweed occur throughout the survey area. Showy annuals and perennials observed include: common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), small-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), cryptantha (Cryptantha intermedia), and Fremont’s star lily (Toxicoscordion fremontii). No sensitive native grassland alliances were observed in the survey area. Native grasses were sparsely intermixed with dominate non-native species. Grasslands observed on site are dominated by non-native grass species:
slender wild Oat (Avena barbata), common wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). California Annual Grassland also typically includes scattered nonnative forbs. Although California Annual Grassland is predominated by introduced annual grass species, this plant community has a significant

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-8
component of native herbs and may provide some functional habitat for many wildlife species. Only when annual grassland is significantly influenced by invasive species (generally a result of a significant disturbance) is the plant community classified as Ruderal Grassland.

Sage Scrub Alliances
Sage Scrub is a shrubland dominated by facultative drought-deciduous, low growing, soft-leaved, and grayish-green (malacophyllus) shrubs and subshrubs. The plants typically exhibit a patchy distribution, often in close associated with chaparral habitats. The sage scrub alliances observed in the survey area include Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (California Buckwheat Scrub), Salvia leucophylla Alliance (Purple Sage Scrub), Salvia apiana Alliance (White Sage Scrub), and Salvia mellifera Alliance (Black Sage Scrub),, as described below. These communities generally occur on rolling hills at lower elevations in the survey area and outside the scour area of drainage Feature F-3. It then transitions into chaparral where hills become steep. Sage Scrub intermixes with chaparral throughout the survey area. (h) Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (California Buckwheat Scrub) 32.040.00 Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (California Buckwheat Scrub) is dominated by Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum, which is a perennial shrub. One patch of Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance, along the ridge top adjacent to a dirt road, is a monotypic stand of Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum. This particular patch of Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance most likely originated following construction of the fire road in the area. Some associate species to this plant community include Our Lord’s Candle and ripgut grass. (i) Salvia leucophylla Alliance (Purple Sage Scrub) 32.090.00 Salvia leucophylla Alliance (Purple Sage Scrub) is dominated by purple sage (Salvia leucophylla). This Alliance was observed as an important component of Sage Scrub within the survey area. Several associate native species contribute to the canopy of Salvia leucophylla Alliance onsite, including: California sagebrush, coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), California bush sunflower (Encelia californica), California Buckwheat, slender wild oat, and black sage (Salvia mellifera).
(j) Salvia apiana Alliance (White Sage Scrub) 32.030.00 Salvia apiana Alliance (White Sage Scrub) is dominated by white sage (Salvia apiana), This Alliance exists when Salvia apiana is the sole, dominant, or important shrub growing with California sagebush in the canopy. Important shrub canopy contributors observed in the survey area include California sagebush and laurel sumac. Other herbaceous associate species observed growing below the low shrub canopy include slender wild oat, and short-pod mustard.
(k) Salvia mellifera Alliance (California brittle bush scrub) 32.020.00 In the Salvia mellifera Alliance, Salvia mellifera is usually the dominant shrub in the overstory. Eriogonum fasciculatum is consistently present, usually as a sub-dominant shrub. A variety of other coastal sage and chaparral species frequently intermix in the shrub layer as sub-dominants. This Alliance was observed as an important component of Sage Scrub within the survey area. Several associate native species contribute to the canopy of Salvia mellifera Alliance in the survey area, including: California sagebush, California bush sunflower, California buckwheat, slender wild oat, and purple sage.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-9
Unvegetated/Altered
(l) Eucalyptus Semi-natural stands (Eucalyptus groves) 79.100.00 Non-native landscape eucalyptus species (Eucalyptus spp.) are located immediately adjacent to drainage Feature F-3 and Mabey Canyon Wash (F-6). In the survey area, this community is integrated with Schinus spp. Semi-natural Stands (see below).
(m) Schinus spp. Semi-natural Stands (Pepper tree) 79.200.00 Non-native landscape pepper tree species (Schinus spp.) are located immediately adjacent to drainage Feature F-3 and Mabey Canyon Wash (F-6). In the survey area, this community is an intergrade with Eucalyptus Semi-natural Stands (see above).
(n) Riverine Habitat (streambed channels)
A streambed channel, either unvegetated or vegetated with upland species, generally qualifies as MSHCP riverine habitat. A channel is defined as a conduit that periodically or continuously contains moving water, or that forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. An intermittent subsystem of the riverine system exists where the channel contains nontidal flowing water for only part of the year. When flows are absent, surface water may be absent or water may remain in isolated pools. Riverine habitat occurs in a narrow band along the drainage features in the survey area where riparian habitats are absent. The riverine habitat onsite is largely unvegetated and contains recent fluvially deposited sediments.
(o) Road/Disturbed
Disturbed describes land or habitat that has been negatively altered, either by human activities (for building and road development purposes) or by natural causes (fires). As a result, this altered land is generally initially bare ground until either development occurs or natural succession begins. Habitat succession is a slow process of reestablishing original plant communities, but successional habitats are readily invaded by ruderal grass and forb species. Disturbed areas in the survey area are primarily existing dirt roads. Limited vegetation occurs in this land cover type and the species that are present tend to be weedy and invasive including species such as Centaurea melitensis, Sisymbrium irio, and Hirschfeldia incana. (p) Ornamental Ornamental vegetation occurs around Mabey Canyon Wash (F-6) near where an abandoned air strip is located, and along drainage Feature F-3 near Mangular Avenue. This vegetation type includes landscaped areas with planted species such as eucalyptus, pepper and pine trees (Pinus spp.). (2) Sensitive Biological Resources
The following discussion describes the plant communities within the project site and plant and wildlife species present, or potentially present, that have been afforded special recognition by Federal, State, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-10
(a) Sensitive Plant Communities
The project site supports three plant communities which are considered California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) high inventory priority communities and are considered sensitive due to their decline in the region and/or their ability to support sensitive species. These include Platanus racemosa Alliance (California Sycamore Woodlands [CNDDB Code 61.310.00]), Salix lasiolepis Alliance (Arroyo willow thickets [CNDDB Code 61.201.01]), and Salvia apiana Alliance (White Sage Scrub [32.030.00]). (b) Sensitive Plant Species A list of sensitive plant species was created based on published literature and literature readily available on the internet, CNDDB records searches (for USGS Alberhill, Black Star Canyon, Corona North, Corona South, El Toro, Lake Mathews, Prado Dam, Riverside West and Santiago Peak 7.5’ minute topographic quadrangles [Rarefind 5 2013]), state and federal species lists, and habitat field surveys. The list of plants assessed for the project site includes 58 species of which eight (8) are listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened, and 50 as sensitive species.

None of the eight (8) species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidates for these listings were observed in the survey area during multiple years of general surveys and a focused plant survey conducted in 2013. Following completion of the focused plant survey three (3) of these species were determined to have a low potential of occurrence in the survey area based on the presence of appropriate habitat although none were observed, including Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), and thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia). San Diego ambrosia, and thread-leaved Brodiaea are covered species under the WRC MSHCP in areas outside the survey overlays for these species; the project is not within these survey overlays, specifically the Narrow Endemic Species and Criteria Area plant species survey overlays respectively. Braunton’s milkvetch is not a WRC MSHCP covered species. The remaining five (5) species were determined to have no potential of being present on the project site based on the lack or absence of appropriate habitat. Of the 50 sensitive plant species, one (1) was observed during the biological field surveys, Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri), and six (6) others were determined to have a potential to occur in the survey area based on the presence of suitable habitat, species range, and proximity to known occurrences. These species are: Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae [high potential]), Fish’s milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae [moderate potential]), intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius [high potential]), intermediate monardella (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia [moderate potential]), white rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum [moderate potential]), and chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontane [low potential]). None of these species were observed during field surveys conducted by GEC or L&L, although intermediate mariposa lily was reported from the northern project site in the CNDDB and in the August 2008 Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension DEIR (RBF Consulting 2008), and chaparral nolina was also recorded in the CNDDB as occurring within the northern end of the survey area. A total of 303 individuals of intermediate mariposa lily were observed in 30 locations during surveys conducted by BonTerra Consulting in May 2008; this species was not relocated in 2013 or observed elsewhere on the project site, although 2013 was considered a low rainfall year.

Intermediate mariposa lily is a covered species (Covered Species Adequately Conserved) under the WRC MSHCP.

Coulter's matilija poppy is a CDFW S4 (Apparently secure in California, but with some concern) and CNPS List 4.2 (watch list). This species is conditionally covered species under the WRC MSHCP and will be considered to be a when Covered Species Adequately Conserved the species-specific conservation objectives December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-11
have been met.1 The distinctive perennial plant is found in sage scrub and chaparral. Blooming period is March-July. Fourteen populations of this species, with numerous subpopulations, were identified in 2008 and again in 2013 in the survey area. Results of the surveys in 2008 found 526 individuals. In 2013, only 236 plants were relocated. No new populations were identified. The 2008 survey year was considered a low-normal rainfall year, while 2013 was considered a low rainfall year. The types of microhabitats found for this species have sandy to coarse sandy substrates. The distribution of the plants was found in the high flow level of the active Feature 3, unnamed drainage, and on the fire (dirt) road in the middle of the survey area Figure 4.C-2, Coulter’s Matilija Poppy. A detailed discussion of each special status plant species, its status, habitat requirements, and the potential to occur within the project site are presented in the Sensitive Plant Report and the BRA Report (GEC 2014a and L&L 2015a). (c) Sensitive Wildlife Species
A list of special status wildlife species was created based on published literature and literature readily available on the internet, CNDDB records searches (for USGS Alberhill, Black Star Canyon, Corona North, Corona South, El Toro, Lake Mathews, Prado Dam, Riverside West and Santiago Peak 7.5’ minute topographic quadrangles [Rarefind 5 - 2013]), state and federal species lists, and habitat field surveys. The list of wildlife assessed for the project site includes 113 species of which 24 are listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened, 72 as sensitive, and one (1) as a U.S. Forest Service sensitive species.

None of the 24 species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidates for these listings were observed in the survey area. Two of these species, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), have potentially suitable habitat in the survey area and were determined to have a moderate potential of occurring within the survey area. Focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted in 2013 by GEC and the species was not observed. Based on these surveys it was determined coastal California gnatcatcher does not currently occupy the survey area.

The survey area does provide potentially suitable foraging habitat for the golden eagle. Both the coastal California gnatcatcher and the golden eagle are classified as Covered Species Adequately Conserved in the WRC MSHCP. Due to the presence of riparian habitat and the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine requirements (MSHCP Section 6.1.2), the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was also analyzed in detail. The survey area is not located within critical habitat for least Bell’s vireo, and the vegetation does not appear to provide suitable territorial or breeding habitat for this species based on the diversity and density of the foliage.

Focused surveys were conducted and no least Bell’s vireo was observed in the survey area; it is unlikely the species would be expected in the survey area or in immediate adjacent areas. The survey area does not support suitable habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat and the area is not within the SKR HCP.

Of the 72 sensitive species, five were observed during the biological surveys: northern red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 1 As outlined in Table 9-3 of the WRC MSHCP, the Species Specific Conservation Objective for Coulter’s matilija poppy is as follows: “In order for this species to become a Covered Species Adequately Conserved, the following conservation must be demonstrated: Within the MSHCP Conservation Area, confirm 30 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than one quarter section).”.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-12
actia), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). Seventeen (17) other sensitive wildlife species were determined to have a high or moderate potential to occur in the survey area based on the presence of suitable habitat, species range and proximity to known occurrences. These species are; California silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), orange- throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), rosy boa (Charina trivirgata), San Bernardino/San Diego ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus ssp. modestus and similis), California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata pulchra) San Diego population, coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Coronado island skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis), coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [see below]), black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Of these species the WRC MSHCP considers the following species “Covered Species Adequately Conserved”: orange throated whiptail, coastal whiptail, northern red-diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, California horned lark, Cooper’s hawk, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, San Diego desert woodrat and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. The California mountain kingsnake (San Diego population) will be considered “Adequately Conserved” once a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the USFS that addresses management for this species on Forest Service Land. An additional one (1) species listed only by the U.S. Forest Service as sensitive, namely fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), was considered to have a low potential to occur within the study area.

Focused surveys were conducted for burrowing owl, one of the 17 sensitive wildlife species listed above, based on the presence of suitable habitat and burrows. However no signs of burrowing owls were observed at the burrows or adjacent to them, and no individuals of burrowing owl were located; thus this species does not currently occupy the study area.

A detailed discussion of each special status wildlife species, its status, habitat requirements, and the potential to occur within the project site are presented in the BRA Report (L&L 2015a) which is an updated to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report (GEC 2014f). The results of focused species surveys for burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, and least Bell's vireo are detailed in the Burrowing Owl Report, California Gnatcatcher Report, and Least Bell’s Vireo Report (GEC 2014b, 2014c, and 2014d). (3) Jurisdictional Features
The project site supports seven (7) main jurisdictional features (referred to as Features 1 through 7) with 56 tributaries, for a total of 63 features. Three of the main features are USGS mapped blue line streams, including Feature 3 (an un-named blue line stream), Feature 6 (Mabey Canyon Wash), and Feature 7 (Wardlow Wash) (Figure 4.C-3, Jurisdictional Feature Map). The features are all ephemeral in nature since water flow is not permanent or present seasonally for long periods.

A jurisdictional delineation was conducted by GEC (GEC 2014e) and updated by L&L, as detailed in the Jurisdictional Delineation (L&L 2015b). Based on the updated L&L delineation, the project site supports 2.16 acres of federal non-wetland jurisdictional area (“waters of the U.S.”) and 10.2 acres of state jurisdictional streambeds. Since the state jurisdictional streambeds incorporate riparian habitat these areas were also determined to meet the definition of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas. Therefore, a total of 10.2 acres of Coulters Ma FIGURE lija Poppy
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-2
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N
FIGURE Jurisdic onal Feature Map
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-3
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N
December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-15
MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas were mapped within the project site. No wetlands were found within the project site.
(4) Wildlife Movement
Larger, relatively undisturbed areas of land play an increasingly critical role in connecting fragmented populations of plant and wildlife species. The basic framework of corridor analysis consists of identifying areas of habitat that are suitable to support regional wildlife movement. Habitat suitability depends upon the needs of a given species. It can be approximated by analyzing habitat characteristics, such as current vegetation, topography (e.g., aspect, slope, elevation), distance to water, and climatic variables (e.g., average temperature, precipitation). Because different wildlife species vary in their sensitivity to human disturbance, habitat suitability is constrained by disturbance variables, such as distance to roads, distance to towns, and traffic volumes. Generally, coverage of known distribution of a species (e.g., from sightings, radio-telemetry locations, hunter-kill and road-kill sites) is also developed. Finally, a probability contour is developed from the convergence of these coverages to indicate the likelihood of a given area being suitable for a given species. Where this probable habitat connects areas of known population centers, it is often termed a corridor. Species that utilize corridors may take several days to several generations to pass through a corridor. Passage species include large herbivores and medium to large carnivores that need corridors to allow individuals to pass directly between two areas. For these species, corridors facilitate juvenile dispersal, seasonal migration, and home range connectivity.

The project site is bordered by urban development to the north and east, and bordered by open space to the south and west. The project site is immediately north and east of MSHCP Core B (Cleveland National Forest).

The project site is not within any linkages identified by South Coast Missing Linkages (South Coast Wildlands 2008); however, the project site occurs along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains which was identified as the Corona-Temecula Foothills linkage in the South Coast Wildland’s 2001 Missing Linkages report (Penrod et al. 2001). The primary impediments to movement identified were gaps in habitat cover along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains due to urban development. The project site’s ability to facilitate wildlife movement was evaluated in relation to whether it provides links to seasonal foraging grounds or affects the exchange of genetic information between disjunct subpopulations. Portions of the project site are utilized for local movement by resident wildlife, primarily birds. Biological surveys of the project site did not detect bedding areas, or caves that could be used as dens for smaller and larger mammals. However, burrows and wildlife trails utilized by cottontails, ground squirrels, and coyotes were detected. In addition, human disturbances, such as runners, hikers with loose dogs, and mountain bikers, were observed on every survey occasion. Cats were also observed on each visit.

The project site includes native habitat that supports a variety of wildlife species and likely contributes generally to the Corona-Temecula Foothills linkage. However, it does not constitute a wildlife corridor (i.e., a piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another), as movement on a regional scale is not confined within a specific corridor within this area. Rather, it is comprised of open space at the interface with urban development and is contiguous to a large expanse of open space within Core B and the Cleveland National Forest. Thus, wildlife currently move freely throughout the project site and surrounding areas via existing travel routes,2 2 A landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is frequently used by wildlife to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route (Footnote continued on next page)

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-16
such as drainages, ridgelines, and existing dirt roads. It should be noted that Wardlow Wash, which crosses the northernmost tip of the project site, was identified by BonTerra Consulting as a regional wildlife corridor that facilitates movement between the Cleveland National Forest and Prado Basin, as referenced by the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension DEIR (RBF Consulting 2008). However, Wardlow Wash is relatively constrained by development on either side, road crossings at three locations (Paseo Grande, Serfas Club Drive, and Palisades Drive), and State Route 91 is a significant barrier to wildlife movement. A recognized connection between the Santa Ana Mountains and Chino Hills area is farther to the west via Coal Canyon (Penrod et al. 2001; Beier and Low 1992). The WRC MSHCP also proposes a connection between Existing Core A (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) with Existing Core B (Cleveland National Forest) via Constrained Linkages 1 and 2, which are also farther to the west (but east of Coal Canyon). The project site also currently provides for movement on a smaller, local scale for species that live within the project site. b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
(a) Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). ESA Section 9 prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land, as well as removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law. Under ESA Section 7, agencies are required to consult with the USFWS or NMFS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect an endangered species (including plants) or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS or NMFS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity, provided the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In cases where the federal agency determines its action may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect, a federally listed species, the agency informally consults with the USFWS and/or NMFS. This informal consultation typically involves incorporating measures intended to ensure effects would not be adverse. Concurrence from the USFWS and/or NMFS concludes the informal process. Without such concurrence, the federal agency formally consults to ensure full compliance with the ESA.
(b) Clean Water Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 United States Code [USC] 1251–1376), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, and better known as the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The purpose of the federal CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Discharges into waters of the United States are regulated under CWA Section 404. Waters of the United States include: 1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide); 2) all interstate waters and wetlands; 3) is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas, and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-17
all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, or natural ponds; 4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above; 5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above; 6) the territorial seas; and 7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above.

Important applicable sections of the CWA are discussed below:

Section 303 requires states to develop water quality standards for inland surface and ocean waters and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Under Section 303(d), the state is required to list waters that do not meet water quality standards and to develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to improve water quality.

Section 304 provides for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.

Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. Certification is provided by the respective Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Section 401 permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB would be required for the proposed project if a Section 404 permit were required.

Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. The NPDES program is administered by the RWQCB. Conformance with Section 402 is typically addressed in conjunction with water quality certification under Section 401.

Section 404 provides for issuance of dredge/fill permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; also referred to as ACoE in the supporting documents for the project). Permits typically include conditions to minimize impacts on water quality. Common conditions include: 1) USACE review and approval of sediment quality analysis before dredging, 2) a detailed pre- and post- construction monitoring plan that includes disposal site monitoring, and 3) requiring compensation for loss of waters of the United States. The areas of the project site that occur below mean higher high water (MHHW) would be subject to regulation under Section 404. (c) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits take of nearly all native birds. Under the MBTA, take means to kill, directly harm, or destroy individuals, eggs, or nests, or to otherwise cause failure of an ongoing nesting effort.
(2) State
(a) California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) authorizes the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] Sections 2050–2098). The CESA defines endangered species as those whose continued existence in California is jeopardized. State-listed threatened species are those not presently facing extinction, but that may become endangered in the foreseeable future. FGC Section 2080 prohibits the taking of state-listed plants and animals. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] prior to January 1, 2013) also designates fully protected or protected species as those that may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Commission and/or CDFW. Species designated as fully protected or protected may or may not be listed as

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-18
endangered or threatened. When a species is both state- and federally listed, an expedited request for consistency with the USFWS biological opinion may be issued through a request for Section 2080.1 consistency determination.
(b) California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code (FGC) is implemented by the Commission, as authorized by Article IV, Section 20, of the Constitution of the State of California. FGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505, 3800, and 3801.6 protect all native birds, birds of prey, and nongame birds, including their eggs and nests, that are not already listed as fully protected and that occur naturally within the state. Section 3503.5 specifically states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, eagles, and falcons), including their nests or eggs. The CDFW is the state agency that manages native fish, wildlife, plant species, and natural communities for their ecological value and their benefits to people.

Sections 1600-1616 of the FGC code allows the CDFW to issue Streambed Alteration Agreements for projects that will adversely affect wildlife habitat associated with any river, stream, or lake edges. Pursuant to this code CDFW asserts jurisdiction over the channel bed and banks, extending to the drip line of associated riparian vegetation if present.
(3) Regional
(a) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The continued loss of habitat to new development and the cumbersome process of environmental review and habitat mitigation on a project-by-project basis led to adoption of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP) by Riverside County in 2003. The WRC MSHCP area encompasses an area stretching from the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County border. The WRC MSHCP is a multijurisdictional effort that provides a regional conservation solution to species and habitat issues that have historically threatened to stall infrastructure and land use development. The WRC MSHCP’s underlying goal is to protect multiple species by preserving a variety of habitat and providing linkages between different habitat areas and other undeveloped lands that would ensure long-term survival of 146 species of plants and animals. As long as adherence to the policies and requirements of the WRC MSHCP is maintained, participants in the WRC MSHCP, which include the County of Riverside and fourteen cities in western Riverside County (including the City of Corona), are allowed to authorize “incidental take" of plant and wildlife species of concern.
(b) Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) The USFWS issued a permit to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency on May 3, 1996 to incidentally take the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). This permit was not superseded by the WRC MSHCP; it is a separate HCP, specific to Stephen’s kangaroo rat. The 30-year Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) is designed to acquire and permanently conserve, maintain, and fund the conservation, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of Stephens’ kangaroo rat occupied habitat.

The SKR HCP covers approximately 534,000 acres within the member jurisdictions (including the City of Corona), and includes an estimated 30,000 acres of occupied Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat. The SKR HCP is within the WRC MSHCP. The SKR HCP requires members to preserve and manage 15,000 acres of occupied Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat in seven Core Reserves encompassing over 41,000 acres. Currently 12,460 acres of occupied habitat exist within the Core Reserves. The WRC MSHCP considers the Stephens’ kangaroo December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-19
rat as a Covered Species Adequately Conserved and affords protection to this species outside the boundaries of the SKR HCP.
(4) Local
(a) Corona General Plan
Chapter 5, Environmental Resources, of the City of Corona’s General Plan addresses several natural elements of the environment, including hydrological resources; biological resources; agricultural and mineral resources; air quality; and visual resources. The Environmental Resources Element provides an inventory of natural resources and a series of policies and programs deemed necessary by the City to use and protect those resources in a substantial manner. An analysis of project consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the Environmental Resources Element relating to biological resources is provided in the Analysis of Project Impacts subsection, below (see Threshold 5). (b) Corona Municipal Code
Section 17.70.070, Landscaping, of the Corona Municipal Code (CMC) addresses landscape requirements, including the use of water efficient landscaping. In addition, Chapter 12.22 of the CMC includes the Community Forestry Program, which describes requirements regarding the planning, planting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of all trees, shrubs, and landscape materials on public property. The CMC recognizes the benefits of landscaping, which include abatement of air and noise effects, reduction of soil erosion, and enhancement of the visual environment. The City of Corona Department of Water and Power implements the requirements of planting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of landscaping on public property.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
A Sensitive Plant Report, Burrowing Owl Report, California Gnatcatcher Report, Least Bell’s Vireo Report, Jurisdictional Delineation Report, MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report, and DBESP Report were prepared by GEC for the project (GEC 2014a through 2014g). A BRA Report, an updated Jurisdictional Delineation, and an updated DBESP of Riparian/Riverine Habitat were prepared by L&L (L&L 2015a through 2015c). The technical reports are contained in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. The methodology for the preparation of these reports included a literature review to evaluate the environmental setting and identify special-status species with potential to occur on site. The review included use of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB [CDFW 2013) and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2013) for the USGS Alberhill, Black Star Canyon, Corona North, Corona South, El Toro, Lake Mathews, Prado Dam, Riverside West and Santiago Peak 7.5’ minute topographic quadrangles (USGS).

A series of biological surveys were conducted on the project site in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2013. Aerial photography and digital vegetation maps were reviewed to determine potential community types within the project site. Preliminary ground-truthing surveys concurred with digital vegetation maps, and additional surveys were performed to accurately define the community types and boundaries. General wetland assessments of the project site were conducted in 2006, 2008, and 2013, which included general mapping of habitat(s) that may be subject to jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600-1612 of the California Fish and Game Code, and WRC MSHCP Section 6.1.2. An updated delineation was conducted in 2015. General reconnaissance and habitat assessment surveys were

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-20
completed to determine habitat suitability for listed species and special status plant, wildlife, and aquatic species. Sensitive plant surveys of the project site were conducted in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2013. Focused species-specific surveys were conducted for burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, and least Bell’s vireo in 2013.
b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form) and the City’s Initial Study Checklist include questions relating to biological resources that are utilized as the thresholds of significance in this section (Thresholds 1-6). Accordingly, the proposed project may create a significant environmental impact if it would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement 4.C-1);
Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement 4.C- 2); Threshold 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (refer to Impact Statement

4.C-3);
Threshold 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (refer to Impact Statement 4.C-4); Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (refer to Impact Statement 4.C-5); or Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (refer to Impact Statement 4.C-6).
c. Project Design Features
Project Design Features (PDFs) have been incorporated as part of the project to address potential indirect effects as result of the urban/wildlands interface, as required by the WRC MSHCP (see also Impact 4.C-6, section (5), of this section). These PDFs include the following:

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 December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-21
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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-22
adaptability to local climatic and soil conditions, and for their compatibility with the unique natural environment in the project site. The WRC 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 WRC MSHCP; none of these plants will be utilized for the proposed project and their use by future homeowners will be prohibited.

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 WRC 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.

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.

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.

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.

It is anticipated that these PDFs will be incorporated in the project conditions of approval. No other PDFs have been identified for the project specifically related to biological resources. However, as also indicated in Section 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, open space would be provided within the project site in the form of landscaped slopes, landscaped and native open space areas, and landscaped detention basins.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-23
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Sensitive Species
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact 4.C-1 The project site has been reported in CNDDB to support intermediate mariposa lily (in 30 locations) and chaparral Nolina (within a small portion of the project site), and was observed to support Coulter’s matilija poppy. Since the intermediate mariposa lily and chaparral nolina species were not relocated during surveys conducted by GEC, no significant impacts to these species are anticipated. Nevertheless, intermediate mariposa lily is a covered species under the WRC MSHCP and payment of the MSHCP Development Fee would reduce impacts to less than significant. Chaparral nolina is not covered under the WRC MSHCP but was only recorded within a small portion of the project site; the record in CNDDB occurs over a large area outside of the project site. As such, any impacts would be considered adverse but not significant and would not require mitigation. Coulter’s matilija poppy is conditionally covered under the WRC MSHCP and the project would impact approximately 40 percent of the identified population. Impacts would be considered adverse but not significant due to the large distribution and number of locations of this species. Furthermore, mitigation measures proposed for the project would also benefit avoided populations of Coulter’s matilija poppy by minimizing direct and indirect impacts, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-4, and BIO-5, in addition to Project Design Features PDF BIO-1 through PDF BIO-9 to address edge effects pursuant to WRC MSHCP requirements for urban/wildlands interface. These measures would also reduce potential impacts to unobserved or new growth of sensitive species identified as having a moderate or high potential of occurring in the survey area. Focused surveys conducted for burrowing owl and least Bell’s vireo were negative. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 are proposed to ensure no future impacts will occur to migratory and nesting birds and burrowing owl, respectively, prior to construction.

With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, which would provide protection to the special-status species if they are found on the project site, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures are also proposed to address indirect impacts. (a) Sensitive Plant Species
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of numerous common plant species, both native and non-native, within the project site. A list of plant species observed within the project site is included in Appendix A of the BRA Report (included in Appendix D in this Draft EIR). Common plant species present within the project site occur in large numbers throughout the region and their removal does not meet the significance thresholds defined above. Therefore, impacts to common plant species would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

As indicated in the Environmental Setting section, above, Coulter’s matilija poppy was observed within the project site. Coulter's matilija poppy is a CNPS Rank 4.2 species (Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – Watch list; 0.2: Fairly endangered in California [20-80% occurrences threatened]). Approximately 526 plants were recorded in 2008 and 236 plants were recorded in 2013. Coulter's matilija poppy is a

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-24
conditionally covered species under the WRC MSHCP; this species will be considered to be a Covered Species Adequately Conserved when the species-specific conservation objectives have been met. Due to the large distribution and number of locations of this species, impacts would be considered adverse but not significant. Impacts are proposed to approximately 40 percent of the identified population (between 95 and 211 individuals based on the 2013 versus 2008 observations of 236 and 526 individuals, respectively); the remaining approximate 60 percent would be avoided within 117.39 acres of natural habitat. Mitigation Measures proposed for the project would avoid impacts to avoided Coulter’s matilija poppy plants, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-4, and BIO-5. BIO-1 would require flagging or fencing of impact and avoidance areas prior to clearing to prevent encroachment into avoided areas, periodic monitoring by a qualified biologist during clearing of habitat as determined appropriate, and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent impacts to avoided biological resources. Mitigation Measures BIO4 and BIO-5 would require measures to minimize the introduction of invasive species. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-12 requires mitigation for impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, and could include planting of species such as Coulter’s matilija poppy if appropriate and/or feasible. Also PDFs are proposed to include measures to minimize effects from the urban/wildlands interface including human and pet encroachment and invasive species pursuant to the WRC MSHCP requirements. These mitigation measures and PDFs would also minimize potential impacts to unobserved or new growth of sensitive species identified as having a moderate or high potential of occurring in the survey area, but not previously observed.

Intermediate mariposa lily was reported from the northern project site in the August 2008 Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension DEIR. Intermediate mariposa lily is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species (Rank 1: Rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range; 0.2: Fairly endangered in California [20-80% occurrences threatened]). A total of 303 individuals were observed in 30 locations during surveys conducted by BonTerra Consulting in May 2008; these locations are proposed for impacts although the species was not relocated during the 2013 survey. As this species was not observed during current surveys, the impacts are unknown but can be estimated at less than 100 individuals. Intermediate mariposa lily is a covered species under the WRC MSHCP. Thus, payment of the MSHCP Development Fee would reduce impacts to less than significant. Chaparral nolina is not a covered species under the WRC MSHCP. This species was recorded in CNDDB as occurring over a large area that crossed only a small portion of the project area. As this species was not observed or previously detailed on the project site the impacts are unknown and cannot be clearly quantified. However, based on the large distribution of the recorded population and the small portion of the project site included in the CNDDB occurrence, impacts from the project would be considered adverse but not significant and no mitigation is required.

Of the remaining four species with potential to occur in the survey area, Catalina mariposa lily, Fish’s milkwort, intermediate monardella, and white rabbit tobacco, only Fish’s milkwort is a covered species under the WRC MSHCP Fish’s milkwort will be considered a “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” once preservation levels within the Conservation Areas are met. However, as the species were not observed over several years, if impacts occur they are expected to be limited. Impacts to these species are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. The remainder of those sensitive plant species that were documented as occurring within the region are not expected to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat, the project site being outside of the known distribution or elevation range for the species, or due to negative results of multiple years of December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-25
focused surveys. Therefore, no impacts would occur to these sensitive plant species with implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation is required.
(b) Sensitive Wildlife Species
As indicated in the Environmental Setting section, above, the majority of the wildlife species that were observed during surveys on-site are considered common to the region. Five (5) sensitive species were observed within the survey area, including northern red-diamond rattlesnake, Cooper’s hawk, California horned lark, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. All these species with the exception of Lawrence’s goldfinch, are Covered Species Adequately Conserved in the WRC MSHCP. Payment of the MSHCP Development Fee would reduce impacts of WRC MSHCP covered species to less than significant. For species not covered under the WRC MSHCP, the project was designed to avoid 117.39 acres of natural habitat which will limit potential impacts to sensitive species in the survey area. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires avoiding clearing and grubbing of habitat during the birds nesting season, which will reduce impacts to less than significant if bird species present at the time of construction.

No threatened or endangered species were recorded or observed in the survey area, although four (4) species were considered including golden eagle, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. The golden eagle was considered to have a potential to occur for foraging only, but was not observed during any of the general or focused surveys conducted within the survey area. Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo were also negative. For Stephens’ kangaroo rat it was determined no suitable habitat occurs within the survey area, and the site is not within the SKR HCP. None of these species have been previously recorded on the project site. With the exception of the least Bell’s vireo which is conditionally covered (requiring “Additional Survey Needs”, the remaining three species are Covered Species Adequately Conserved in the WRC MSHCP. Payment of the MSHCP Development Fee would reduce impacts of WRC MSHCP covered species to less than significant. For species not covered under the WRC MSHCP, the project was designed to avoid 117.39 acres of natural habitat which will limit potential impacts to sensitive species in the survey area. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires avoiding clearing and grubbing of habitat during the nesting season, which will reduce impacts to less than significant if bird species are present at the time of construction.

Seventeen (17) other sensitive wildlife species were determined to have a high or moderate potential to occur in the survey area based on the presence of suitable habitat, species range and proximity to known occurrences. Of these, five species are Covered Species Adequately Conserved in the WRC MSHCP, including orange throated whiptail, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and San Diego desert woodrat. The California mountain kingsnake (San Diego population) will be considered “Adequately Conserved” once a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the USFS that addresses management for this species on Forest Service Land. Payment of the MSHCP Development Fee would reduce impacts of WRC MSHCP covered species to less than significant.

The burrowing owl is a species that requires “Additional Survey Needs” pursuant to the WRC MSHCP in mapped areas identified as the survey area overlays. The project site is located within the required survey area and focused surveys were conducted. No burrowing owl or sign of burrowing owl were observed in the survey area. Although the site is currently not occupied, this species is migratory and has the potential to occupy the site in the future. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires a pre-construction survey for burrowing

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-26
owls to prevent impacts to this species, and mitigation should owls be observed pursuant to CDFW guidelines (CDFW, 2012). With this mitigation measure impacts are considered less than significant.

The remaining ten (10) species are not covered under the WRC MSHCP, including the California silvery legless lizard, rosy boa, San Bernardino/San Diego ringneck snake, California mountain kingsnake, Coronado island skink, coast patch-nosed snake, black-chinned sparrow, pallid bat, Dulzura pocket mouse, hoary bat, and monarch butterfly.

Direct Impacts: Each of the sensitive species discussed above that are known to occur or have a high to moderate potential to occur in the habitat on or immediately adjacent to the proposed impact area, have a potential to be directly impacted during construction of the project if they are present at the time of construction. The noise, activity, and presence of humans on the worksite will likely discourage many species of wildlife from the site during working hours, depending on the mobility of the species. More mobile species will move away from active construction zones into adjacent habitats. Wildlife may take refuge around the equipment in off hours and, if present, could be injured or killed by construction vehicles or passenger vehicles when vehicles are first started/moved, when species are moving through the construction zones, or when hiding within the impact area.

The larger mammal and bat species are not expected to be directly impacted and were considered to have a low potential of impacts, based on their high mobility levels and lack of roosting habitat observed. It is possible, though, that potential roosting or denning habitat does occur in the project impact area or that burrows went unobserved. In addition, the possibility cannot be completely eliminated that these species could be hit by construction vehicles or trapped in a roost/den location. Take of these species is possible; however, the wide territories of these species, vast open habitat in the area, no existing access restrictions around the project area preventing escape, and the nocturnal habits of some species reduce the potential for impacts.

Avian species have a low-moderate potential of being directly impacted based on their mobility and the relatively slow moving construction equipment, but if active nests are present within the project area, eggs and juveniles have a high potential of being impacted.

Small mammal and reptile species have a higher potential to be impacted by construction activities. Small mammals and reptiles can be very mobile, but often hide or rest in subsurface burrows or in debris piles and could be impacted during clearing, grubbing, dirt moving or construction. During construction the noise, activity, and presence of humans on the worksite will likely discourage mammals from the site during working hours, but these species may take refuge around the equipment or in subsurface burrows and debris piles in off hours.

Sensitive reptile and small mammal species that have moderate or high potential for occurring within the habitat in the survey area are considered to have a moderate potential of being directly impacted.

Mitigation Measures have been incorporated to minimize direct impacts to sensitive wildlife species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: flagging or fencing the impact area to prevent unintended impacts, biological monitoring, and BMPs to avoid inadvertent impacts to avoided biological resources. BMPs include placing refuse in covered containers and removing daily so as to reduce the potential for attracting wildlife to an December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-27
unsafe construction zone where they may be trapped or injured. This will also reduce opportunistic predatory wildlife such as crows, ravens, coyotes, dogs etc.; Mitigation Measure BIO-2: avoiding clearing and grubbing between January 1 and September 1 or conducting a nesting bird clearance will reduce the impacts to nesting birds, eggs or dependent juveniles during construction, although intended to minimize impacts to nesting birds avoidance of this period (if possible) would also reduce impacts to other breeding species; Mitigation Measure BIO-3: preconstruction survey for burrowing owls and mitigation, if observed. The species that are not ‘Adequately Conserved’ under the WRC MSHCP, California silvery legless lizard, rosy boa, San Bernardino/San Diego ringneck snake, Coronado island skink, coast patch-nosed snake, black- chinned sparrow, pallid bat, Dulzura pocket mouse, hoary bat and monarch butterfly are considered sensitive by the CDFW and/or USFS and are being monitored for changes in their level of rarity. At this time impacts to these species are generally not regulated and with the mitigation measures outlined, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Indirect Effects: Habitat fragmentation will consist of the loss of 153.5 acres of native habitats and isolation of native habitats to the east of the project from the larger Core B habitat area. The Project will incorporate barriers to prevent both common and sensitive wildlife species from entering the residential development and increasing their potential for impact by humans, vehicles, pets or other urban hazards. The barriers would also prevent human and pet encroachment and the potential for direct impacts by those means.

These preventative measures, while incorporated for the safety of the wildlife and adjacent habitat, also restricts wildlife movement and adds to habitat fragmentation.

Amphibian, reptile, avian, mammal and insect species may experience indirect impacts from construction including, increases in noise, chemical emissions, and vibration impacts resulting in avoidance and abandonment of the area. Movement of species could concentrate populations, increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats and leave displaced individuals vulnerable to predation. Those species that may use the project area for foraging will still have access to large expanses of relatively undisturbed habitat in the project vicinity, including the Cleveland National Forest lands to the west. Due to the remote location and open area emissions should disperse.

Although the species will be displaced and may alter behavior, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 which recommends clearing and grubbing be conducted outside the nesting bird season, or, if work cannot be avoided, nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to impacts, will prevent impacts to eggs and juveniles. If avoidance is possible it will also reduce impacts to all wildlife during typical reproduction periods. With the presence of substantial habitat of equal quality nearby, the project vicinity can provide sufficient foraging and nesting habitat. In addition, the WRC MSHCP considers the development throughout the County and balances development with conservation of the highest quality and largest possible areas of native habitats. The WRC MSHCP does not identify the survey area as a Conservation Area.

Increases in invasive plant species could affect the diet of small herbivorous mammal species by displacing their primary food sources and out-compete native vegetation that may be needed by specific wildlife species (i.e. host plants). A potential increase in invasive species would likely occur along the perimeter of the impact area, where newly exposed soils could provide fertile ground. Invasive species that may occur along the current roadway and within the impact area could disperse seed to newly turned soil. Large areas of undisturbed vegetation occur in the project vicinity and would be available food sources for these species.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-28
Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5 are incorporated to minimize increases in invasive vegetation; measures to avoid invasive vegetation impacts are also proposed as PDFs in compliance with WRC MSHCP requirements. After completion of construction, noise levels adjacent to the site will be increased over current conditions at those locations, but are not expected to exceed residential noise standards. In addition, barriers are proposed between residential development and conservation areas, which will reduce the amount of noise, chemical emissions and fugitive dust from the development crossing into or affecting wildlife in the conservation areas after completion of construction.
(2) Riparian Habitat
Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact 4.C-2 Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to four riparian habitat alliances and a sensitive natural sage scrub community. However, implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Impacts to plant communities are summarized in Table 4.C-2, Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities, below. The project site supports five (5) plant communities that are considered sensitive natural communities by the CNDDB and/or protected pursuant to the WRC MSHCP. These include the four (4) riparian vegetation alliances, and one of the sage scrub alliances. Specifically, all four riparian vegetation alliances totaling 2.89 acres (including Coast Live Oak Alliance, Mulefat Alliance, Sycamore Alliance, and Willow Alliance) meet the WRC MSHCP definition or Riparian/Riverine Areas and require compensatory mitigation for impacts. Three (3) communities are considered sensitive (high priority for inventory) by CNDDB, including 0.37 acre of Sycamore Alliance (Platanus racemosa [California sycamore woodlands] Alliance), 0.21 acre of Willow Alliance (Salix lasiolepis [Arroyo willow thickets] Alliance), and one of the four Sage Scrub Alliances, specifically Salvia apiana (White sage scrub) Alliance.

Impacts will occur to 0.72-acre of riparian habitat that meets the definition of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas (25 percent of the total 2.89 acres); the majority of impacts will occur to the Sycamore and Willow Alliances (0.32 acre and 0.21 acre, respectively) that are also considered of high priority for inventory by CNDDB. Although impacts will occur to the Sage Scrub Alliance, the specific acreage to the CNDDB sensitive Salvia apiana Alliance is unknown. However, since the project site is not within any MSHCP Criteria Cells requiring conservation of habitats, impacts to this vegetation community is considered covered under the WRC MSHCP. The impacts to all vegetation communities within the survey area are depicted on Figure 4.C-4, Habitat Impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would compensate for impacts to riparian habitats and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This mitigation is also intended to satisfy compensatory requirements for regulatory permitting outlined in Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9. Since impacts December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-29
to the CNDDB sensitive Salvia apiana Alliance is considered covered under the WRC MSHCP, payment of the MSHCP mitigation fee would reduce impacts to this community to a less than significant level.

Indirect impacts to avoided plant communities could also occur through dust generated during construction, a potential increase in non-native species, and human and pet encroachment. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5, and PDFs intended to address edge effects from the development, potential indirect impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (3) Wetlands Threshold 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Table 4.C-2
Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Habitat
Existing in the Survey
Area (acres) Avoided (acres)
Project impacts
(acres)
Riparian and Woodland Habitats
Coast Live Oak Alliancea 1.17 1.07 0.1
Mulefat Alliancea 1.14 1.05 0.09
Sycamore Alliancea,b 0.37 0.05 0.32
Willow Alliancea, b 0.21 0 0.21
Subtotal 2.89 2.17 0.72
Upland Habitats
Chaparral Alliance 218.05 93.66 124.39
Grassland Alliance 5.54 2.12 3.42
Sage Scrub Alliance b,c 41.59 16.62 24.97
Subtotal 265.18 112.40 152.78
Unvegetated/Altered Areas
Detention Basin 0 0 0
Disturbed 0 0 0
Eucalyptus/Pepper Alliance 2.82 2.82 0
Subtotal 2.82 2.82 0
Total Acreage 270.89 117.39 153.5
a
These habitats are protected pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the WRC MSHCP based on meeting the definition of Riparian/Riverine Areas. b
These habitats are considered high priority for inventory (sensitive) by CNDDB. c Sage Scrub Alliance is comprised of four alliances including Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance, Salvia leucophylla Alliance, Salvia apiana Alliance, and Salvia mellifera Alliance; only the Salvia apiana Alliance is considered sensitive (high priority for inventory) by CNDDB.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-30
Impact 4.C-3 As the project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands, no significant impacts to wetlands would occur. However, the project site supports jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and riparian scrub and streambed. Thus, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. Therefore, no significant impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur as a result of project implementation.

The project site supports 10.2 acres of state jurisdictional streambed, of which 2.16 acres is federal nonwetland jurisdictional area (“waters of the U.S.”). The proposed project will impact 6.17 acre of state jurisdictional streambed, of which 1.57 acres (19,851 linear feet) is federal jurisdictional drainages, as outlined in Table 4.C-3, Impacts to State Streambeds and Federal Drainage Features. Impacts to federal drainage features are depicted on Figure 4.C-5, ACoE Feature Impacts, and impacts to state streambeds are depicted on Figure 4.C-6, CDFW Feature Impacts. The majority of impacts will occur to Feature 3 (F-3; an unnamed blue line stream).

Impacts to jurisdictional features are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-8 outline requirements to obtain regulatory permits prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Specifically, the project Applicant would be required to obtain regulatory permits including a CWA Section 404 permit, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts to jurisdictional features regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-9 outline BMPs to avoid indirect impacts to avoided jurisdictional features.

Table 4.C-3
Impacts to State Streambeds and Federal Drainage Features Feature Impacts to State Streambeds Impacts to Federal Features (including tributaries) Sq. ft. Acres Length Sq. ft. Acres Length F-1 42,594 0.98 6,052 38252 0.88 5232
F-2 191 0.004 191 56 0.001 70
F-3 219,064 5.03 13,776 28,825 0.66 13,232
F-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
F-5 3298 0.08 1986 1427 0.03 1317
F-6 3694 0.08 244 0 0 0
F-7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 268,841 6.17ac 22,249 68,560 1.57 ac 19,851
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
Habitat Impacts FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-4
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N
ACoE Feature Impacts FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-5
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N
CDFW Feature Impacts FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-6
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-34
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-35
(4) Wildlife Movement and Migratory Species
Threshold 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact 4.C-4 The site contains vegetation suitable for nesting birds. Therefore, the project may result in significant impacts on nesting bird species that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA if removal, clearing, and/or grubbing were to occur during the general avian nesting season (January 1 to September 1). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts to regional wildlife movement are less than significant and no mitigation is required. (a) Wildlife Movement
The project site does not contain any movement corridors for native resident migratory fish or wildlife species beyond local movement. Wildlife currently move freely throughout the project site and surrounding areas, and upon build-out of the proposed project, are anticipated continue to use open space areas adjacent to the project site to the west and south. Thus, potential impacts to regional movement are considered less than significant and mitigation is not required. It should be noted that Wardlow Wash, which crosses the northernmost tip of the project site, was identified by BonTerra Consulting as a regional wildlife corridor that facilitates movement between the Cleveland National Forest and Prado Basin, as referenced by the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension DEIR (RBF Consulting 2008). However, Wardlow Wash is relatively constrained by development on either side, road crossings at three locations (Paseo Grande, Serfas Club Drive, and Palisades Drive), and State Route 91 is a significant barrier to wildlife movement. Regardless, Wardlow Wash will be avoided and the proposed project would not inhibit wildlife movement along the drainage; thus, impacts to regional wildlife movement are less than significant and no mitigation is required. (b) Migratory Species The project site contains vegetation suitable for nesting raptors and songbirds, and variety of bird species were observed during biological surveys (as listed in Appendix A of the BRA Report, which is included as Appendix D of this Draft EIR). Therefore, the proposed project may result in significant impacts on nesting bird species that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA if removal, clearing, and/or grubbing were to occur during the general avian nesting season (January 1 to September 1).

Removal, clearing, and/or grubbing of vegetation should be avoided during the general avian nesting season (January 1 to September 1). Any impacts to nesting birds are potentially significant. If removal, clearing, and/or grubbing of vegetation must take place during the nesting season, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure would require a nesting bird survey to determine if any nests exist. If nests are found, an exclusion buffer would be established to provide protection to the nesting birds, as determined appropriate by the biologist. A qualified biologist would monitor to determine when nesting activities cease or all young have fledged at which time construction could continue in that area.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-36
(5) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact 4.C-5 The project is substantially consistent with City policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no significant impact would occur.

The project would not result in the removal of any street trees, which are regulated under the CMC. Chapter

12.22 of the CMC includes the Community Forestry Program, which describes requirements regarding the planning, planting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of all trees, shrubs, and landscape materials on public property. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with this tree ordinance. Therefore, impacts are not significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.C-4 General Plan Consistency Analysis, below, provides an analysis of the project relative to applicable goals and policies regarding biological resources in the Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan. As shown in Table 4.C-3, the project is consistent with the goals and policies including a Table 4.C-4
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Environmental Resources - Biological Resources
Goal 10.6 - Protect, enhance, and sustain significant
plant and wildlife species and habitat, which exist in
Corona and its Planning Area for the long term benefit
of the natural environment, and Corona residents and
visitors.

Consistent. Technical biological reports were prepared
for the project by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC (GEC 2014a through 2014g), and updated by L&L
Environmental, Inc. (L&L 2015a through 2015c), An
analysis of special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats is provided in the BRA report (L&L
2015a) and in this EIR, and appropriate mitigation is
proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts.

Policy 10.6.2: Preserve the species and habitats listed in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 of the Technical Background
Report and those that may be considered by the City of
Corona in the future.

Consistent. A review of CNDDB and CNPS databases was
conducted for species with potential to occur within the vicinity and an analysis of special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats is provided in the BRA
Report (L&L 2015a) and in this EIR. Appropriate
mitigation is proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts, including impacts to riparian habitats. The
mitigation will result in a no-net-loss of habitat and, in some cases, a net gain of habitat which will be preserved.

Policy 10.6.3: Acquire and maintain the most current
technical information available regarding the status,
location, and condition of significant and sensitive
biological species and habitats as well as assessments
of potential for impacts on those resources and how
such resources should be appropriately protected,
conditions sustained, and impacts mitigated from
nearby development. Consistent. Technical biological reports were prepared for the project by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC (2014a through 2014g), and updated by L&L
Environmental, Inc. (L&L 2015a through 2015c). A review of CNDDB and CNPS databases was conducted for species
with potential to occur within the vicinity and an analysis of special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats is provided in the BRA Report (L&L 2015a) and in this EIR. Appropriate mitigation is proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
Table 4.C-4 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-37
Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 10.6.4: Participate and enroll in the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to conserve biological
diversity through protection of natural communities.

Consistent. The project site is located within the WRC
MSHCP. The project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area and focused surveys were conducted for
this species; however, no burrowing owls were found on- site. The project site is located outside the Stephens’ kangaroo rat mitigation fee area. The Applicant would pay the required MSHCP development mitigation fee.

Impacts to riparian/riverine resources will be mitigated as proposed in the DBESP Report (L&L 2015c).

In addition, project design features have been
incorporated to address potential indirect effects as result of the urban/wildlands interface and it is anticipated they will be incorporated within the project conditions of
approval.

Goal 10.7 – Ensure that biological resources are not
impacted during or as a result of construction and
development activity.

Consistent. A full analysis of impacts on biological
resources is provided in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report (GEC 2014f), the update prepared by L&L
Environmental, Inc. (L&L 2015a) and in this EIR.

Recommended mitigation measures would require
mitigation for sensitive plant species and communities, biological monitoring during construction, and pre- construction nesting bird surveys, which would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Policy 10.7.1: Require that construction activities be
conducted in a manner to minimize adverse impacts on
natural resources through the use of Best Management
Practices, as established and updated by the City of
Corona.

Consistent. BMPs will be implemented as part of the
storm water pollution prevention measures for the
project, in accordance with all appropriate National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.

Policy 10.7.2 – Where applications for development are
being proposed in undeveloped areas of the City and the SOI areas, or in areas that an Initial Study has determined there is potential for significant adverse impacts to
biological resources, an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be undertaken by the proponent. As part of these studies,
the proponent shall also submit a biological resources
technical report with the following qualifications:
a) The report must be prepared by a qualified
professional who addresses the proposed project’s
impact on federally and State-listed and candidate
plants and animals; California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG)3 Special Animals; natural
communities of high inventory priority with the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB);
and any other special interest species or
Consistent. Technical biological reports were prepared
for the project by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC (GEC 2014a through 2014g) and updated by L&L
Environmental, Inc. (L&L 2015a through 2015c). An
analysis of special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats is provided in the BRA Report (L&L
2015a) and in this EIR, and appropriate mitigation is
proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts. 3 It should be noted that California Department of Fish and Game changed its name to California Department of Fish and Wildlife as of January 1, 2013.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
Table 4.C-4 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-38
Goals and Policies Consistency
communities identified in the General Plan
Technical Background Report, or those hereafter
named by federal or State trustee agencies.
b) If appropriate habitat for any listed species occurs on the site, a qualified biologist shall conduct
focused surveys according to USFWS and/or CDFG
protocol.
c) A qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare
plant survey during the appropriate time of year
following USFWS and/or CDFG protocol.
d) If any listed species would potentially be impacted
by the proposed project, consultation with USFWS
and/or CDFG would be required to identify
mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or
compensate for impacts. These mitigation
measures would be included in the report.
e) The report shall also define a program for
monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the
specified mitigation measures.

Goal 10.9 – Protect natural and biological resources
within riparian corridors and wetlands.

Consistent. The project site does not contain any
wetlands. Appropriate mitigation is proposed to offset
any potentially significant impacts to resources within riparian corridors (Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through
BIO-9 and BIO-12).

Policy 10.9.1: Review proposed developments in
riparian and wetland habitats to evaluate their
conformance with the following policies and standards:

Full consideration of the nature of existing
biological resources present and all reasonable
measures that shall be taken to avoid
significant impacts, including retention of
sufficient natural open space and undeveloped
buffer zones.

Development shall be designed and sited to
preserve watercourses, riparian habitat, vernal
pools, and wetlands in their natural condition,
unless these actions result in an infeasible
project.

Where riparian corridors are retained, they
shall be protected by an adequate buffer with a
minimum 100 foot protection zone from the
edge of the tree, shrub, or herb canopy.

Development shall incorporate habitat
linkages (wildlife corridors) to adjacent open
spaces, where appropriate.

Development shall incorporate fences, walls,
vegetative cover, or other measures to
adequately buffer habitat areas, linkages, or
corridors from the built environment.

Consistent. The proposed project avoids impacts to
jurisdictional drainage features to the maximum extent
practicable and was designed to avoid 117.39 acres of
natural habitat. However, the proposed project will
impact 6.17 acres of state jurisdictional streambed and riparian habitat, of which 1.57 acres (19,851 linear feet) is federal jurisdictional drainage features. Appropriate
mitigation is proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts to riparian resources (Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9 and BIO-12). In addition, project design
features have been incorporated to address potential
indirect effects as result of the urban/wildlands interface, and it is anticipated they will be incorporated within the project conditions of approval. The project is providing protection zone buffers between the development and the vegetation canopy in the avoided drainage features.

Corona City CouncilJuly 1, 2026

Corona City Council
July 1, 2026