Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

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-39
Goals and Policies Consistency
Roads and utilities shall be located and
designed such that conflicts with biological
resources, habitat areas, linkages, or corridors
are avoided.

Development shall utilize appropriate open
space or conservation easements in order to
protect sensitive species or their habitats.

Development shall mitigate unavoidable
adverse impacts to waters of the United States,
wetlands, and riparian habitat by replacement
on an in-kind basis (i.e., riparian habitat is to
be replaced by riparian habitat of the same
type). Replacement shall be based on a ratio
determined by the California State Fish and
Game Department and/or the Army Corps of
Engineers in order to account for the
potentially diminished habitat value of
replacement habitat. Such replacement shall
occur on the original development site,
whenever possible. Alternatively, replacement
can be effected, subject to State and Federal
regulatory approval, by creation or restoration
of replacement habitats elsewhere, preferably
within Corona’s Planning Area. Replacement
habitats are to be protected in perpetuity
through acquisition, an appropriate
conservation easement, or dedication.

Policy 10.9.2: Prohibit development and grading that
alters the biological integrity of riparian corridors,
unless no feasible alternative exists or the damaged
habitat is replaced with habitat of equivalent value.

Development that is permitted with riparian corridors
shall be based on field evidence and interpretation of
physical and biological data that shall include the
following:

The nature and extent of the vegetation, or in
the case of disturbed sites, the potential
vegetation
Topography
Hydrology
Consistent. The proposed project avoids impacts to
jurisdictional drainage features to the maximum extent
practicable. 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). Policy 10.10.4 – Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem,
aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.

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. Furthermore, appropriate mitigation is proposed to offset any potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources.

Policy 10.10.5 – Conserve the oak tree resources in the Consistent. The project site supports 1.17 acres of Coast

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-40
Goals and Policies Consistency
City and SOI areas. Live Oak Alliance. These proposed project is within the County of Riverside but is proposed for annexation into the City of Corona; thus, impacts to oaks are analyzed
under the City’s regulations (although the County of
Riverside also regulates oak trees within the Oak Tree
Management Guidelines). The proposed project will
impact only 0 .1 acre of the total 1.17 acres on the project site. Mitigation for oak trees is proposed to replace trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio within landscaped areas
(Mitigation Measure BIO-10). Oak tree mitigation may
also be incorporated into mitigation proposed for riparian habitat, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-12.

Source: City of Corona General Plan, ICF International, and PCR Services Corporation. mitigation measure to compensate for impacts to oak trees (Mitigation Measure BIO-10). As such, impacts would be less than significant.

In summary and based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, including a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (6) Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans 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? 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.

The project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP and would comply with the WRC MSHCP. The project site is not within a Criteria Cell, nor is it within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Species, Amphibian Species, or Mammal Species Survey Areas. The project is also not located within a MSHCP designated Core or Linkage and will not impact overall Reserve Assembly goals, although the project does adjoin PQP (public quasi-public) and would isolate a 10-acre PQP parcel. None of the identified Planning Species for the Temescal Canyon Area Plan have been located within the survey area.

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 and the SKR HCP. The Applicant would pay the required MSHCP development mitigation fee. Project compliance with the WRC MSHCP is outlined below.

December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-41
(a) Cores and Linkages
The project is not within any MSHCP designated Core or Linkage areas but is located adjacent to a large expanse of open space within Core B to the east and the Cleveland National Forest. As such, the project has the potential to minimally affect Core B, although in most areas the Core is separated from the proposed impact area by undeveloped land and topographic changes. Furthermore, wildlife currently moves freely throughout the project site and surrounding areas via existing travel routes such as drainages, ridgelines, and existing dirt roads. It should be noted that the main drainages for Feature 6 (Mabey Canyon Wash) and Feature 7 (Wardlow Wash) are mostly (Feature 6) or entirely (Feature 7) being avoided. Wardlow Wash 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).
(b) Public Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands
The proposed Project is outside of public quasi-public (PQP) lands. The survey area adjoins PQP properties to the north, west and south. With the implementation of the project a single 10 acre PQP parcel is surrounded by the survey area and is bordered to the west, north and east by the proposed development and the Foothill Parkway. Although not all of the land surrounding the 10 acre parcel is proposed for development, this parcel and adjacent habitat avoided by the proposed Project will be isolated from the larger MSHCP Core B area to the west by the proposed Project.

The MSHCP (Section 3.2.1) requires that if an MSHCP permittee alters PQP land in such a way that it no longer contributes to the reserve assembly, the permittee will replace the land at a ratio no less than 1:1 and the replacement must be biologically equivalent or superior. Ten acres of habitat adjacent to Forest Service land will be avoided as compensation for the isolation of the 10 acre PQP parcel, as shown in Figure 4.C-7, Compensation Parcel, and will be deed restricted to prevent future impacts.

The existing PQP parcel is 10 acres in the foothills east of the proposed project and would remain. The parcel supports two jurisdictional features and approximately 10 acres of dry scrub habitat; 9 acres of chaparral Alliance and 1 acre of sage scrub Alliance. The parcel is crossed on the east side by a dirt access road and is a part of the general area being used for recreational purposes. The site is on the edge of development, approximately 525 feet from agricultural development to the southeast, 650 feet from medium density residential development to the east and is immediately adjacent to the proposed Foothill Parkway impact area. The parcel is a part of the general area being used for recreational purposes.

The 10 acre parcel proposed for compensation is in the far west portion of the survey area, very close to the isolated parcel; in the same area of the Santa Ana foothills. The compensation parcel supports 10 acres of chaparral Alliance and two jurisdictional features. There are no access roads on the property. The proposed development is adjacent to the compensation parcel, but only a narrow east/west band of the development comes close to the parcel. Another seven acres of natural land contiguous (or adjacent) to the ten acre compensation parcel will be avoided by the development, and will remain undeveloped. The proposed parcel is immediately adjacent to PQP land, MSHCP Core B, and would add to the total acreage of contiguous land within the Core. Proposed mitigation measures will increase the size of natural land associated with Core B of the MSHCP Conservation Areas and will provide a larger area to be utilized by a wide variety of species for dispersal, seasonal migration and home range connectivity. These includes Mitigation Measure BIO-11, preserving a 10 acre block of natural land adjacent to the Forest Service land and Core B, and

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-42
Mitigation Measure BIO-12, preserving avoided resources within the survey area to the extent feasible in open space areas placed within a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism to prevent future development,. There would be no loss to the overall acreage or quality of PQP lands; the existing PQP lands would remain in addition to the compensation parcel. (c) Burrowing Owl Survey Area Focused surveys were conducted for burrowing owl in May, June and July 2013 and this species was not observed on-site. However, based on the presence of suitable habitat and in compliance with the WRC MSHCP, a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owl will be conducted prior to earth disturbance (i.e., construction), as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Measures are also proposed should burrowing owl be observed during the pre-construction survey. With the implementation this mitigation measure, impacts to burrowing owls would be reduced to a less than significant level. (d) Riparian/Riverine
All of the habitat and drainages beds identified as state jurisdictional areas were also identified as Riparian/Riverine as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the WRC MSHCP. As such, the project site supports 10.2 acres of state jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine Areas, of which 6.17 acres are proposed for impacts including Sycamore Alliance (0.32 acre), Mulefat Alliance (0.09 acre), Willow Alliance (0.21 acre), Oak Alliance (0.1 acre) and streambeds with upland habitat (5.45 acres). An impacts map is provided as Figure

4.C-8, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impacts. Impacts are also summarized in Table 4.C-5, Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Table 4.C-6, Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian Habitat. Impacts to riparian/riverine resources are potentially significant. However, as required under Section 6.1.2 of the WRC MSHCP, impacts will be mitigated at a biologically equivalent or superior level as proposed in the DBESP Report to ensure that functions and values of the riparian/riverine resources are not lost, as detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-12. The DBESP Report is provided in Appendix D of this Draft EIR (L&L 2015c).

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the WRC MSHCP, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Table 4.C-5
Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian/Riverine Areas
MSHCP

6.1.2 Features On-site
Avoided
(acres)
Project
Impacts
(acres)
Percent
Avoided
Percent
Impacted
Upland or Unvegetated
Riverine Features 7.31 1.86 5.45 25% 75%
Riparian Vegetated
Features 2.89 2.17 0.72 75% 25%
TOTAL 10.2 4.03 6.17 100% 100%
Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
Compensa on Parcel FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-7
Source: L & L Environmental, Inc., 2015. N
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impacts FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.C-8
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-45
(e) Urban/Wildlands Interface
The guidelines presented in WRC MSHCP Section 6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Development located in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Area. Indirect impacts are considered to be those impacts associated with the project that involve the effects of alteration of the existing habitat and an increase in human population within the study area. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to the study area. Indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise and light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), competitors (e.g., exotic plants and non-native animals), and trampling and unauthorized recreational use due to the increase in human population. Other permanent indirect effects may occur that are related to water quality and storm water management, including trash/debris, toxic materials, and dust.

Indirect effects resulting from the proposed project may occur within the MSHCP Conservation Area if the PDF BIO-1 through PDF BIO-9, discussed above under Project Design Features, are not implemented.

Therefore, to minimize indirect effects at the urban/wildlands interface, the following measures shall be incorporated into the PDFs to ensure consistency with WRC MSHCP Section 6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface. 3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The geographic area for cumulative analysis regarding biological resources is the WRC MSHCP area, within which is the City of Corona General Plan. The project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, including endangered or threatened species, plant communities, habitat fragmentation and wildlife movement, local policies and ordinances, or habitat conservation plans, based on the lack of impacts to these resources or the proposed mitigation measures to mitigate impacts. Cumulative development in the greater region has been considered and impacts minimized and mitigated for under the WRC MSHCP. By meeting the MSHCP requirements the project’s contribution to the regional impact would not be Table 4.C-6
Impacts and Avoidance of Riparian Habitat
Riparian Habitat On-site
Avoided
(acres)
Project
Impacts
(acres)
Percent
Avoided
Percent
Impacted
Mulefat Alliance 1.14 1.05 0.09 92 8
Coast Live Oak Alliance 1.17 1.07 0.10 91 9
Sycamore Alliance 0.37 0.05 0.32 13.5 86.5
Willow Alliance 0.21 0 0.21 0 100
TOTAL 2.89 2.17 0.72 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-46
cumulatively considerable. Future projects in the vicinity would also be subject to MSHCP requirements and mitigation, although additional development in the project vicinity is expected to be limited due to its proximity to widespread natural open space on National Forest lands and the WRC MSHCP Core B.

Therefore, since the project is in compliance with the WRC MSHCP, will participate in the WRC MSHCP including payment of mitigation fees, and proposes addition mitigation measures, the project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts to biological resources.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the analysis above, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact with regard to special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional features, nesting birds, and MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:

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.

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 December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-47
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 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 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

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-48
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 (see also proposed PDFs outlined in Impact 4.C-6, section (5)) Mitigation Measure BIO-4: All heavy equipment shall be washed, 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.

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 December 2015 4.C. Biological Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-49
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) 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; the proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, antifreeze and other toxic substances.

City of Corona General Plan Oak Tree Avoidance
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. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 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.

4.C. Biological Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.C-50
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;
Planting methods;
Irrigation and maintenance requirements; and
A long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring plan with remedial measures. 5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the above Project Design Features and mitigation measures, impacts associated with biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to evaluate potential impacts on cultural resources including historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources that could occur with implementation of the project. The additional 150.3-acre area beyond the 270.9-acre area to be developed as part of the project, but within the overall 394.8-acre annexation area, would not be physically impacted as a result of project implementation.

As such, this analysis focuses on the 270.9-acre development footprint area within the project site that would be physically impacted by the project.

The analysis of cultural resources presented in this section is derived from technical reports prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. including: Supplementary Cultural Resources Assessment for the Skyline Heights Project (TTM 36544) in the City of Corona, Riverside County, California (dated April 22, 2014); Supplementary Paleontological Research for Expanded Study Area of the Skyline Heights Project (TTM 36544) in the City of Corona, Riverside County (dated April 22, 2014); and Update to Paleontological Resources Report for the Skyline Heights Project (TTM 36544) in the City of Corona, Riverside County, California (dated May 9, 2013). These technical reports are provided for reference in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Cultural Setting
(a) Native American Ethnographic Setting1 The project area lies on the edge of the traditional cultural territory of the Gabrielino/Tongva and Luiseño groups, but may also have been occupied by the Cahuilla as a result of population shifts over time. These tribes all belong to a cultural group that speaks a language of the Takic branch of the Shoshonean family, part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock.

Among the inland Cahuilla and the Luiseño, subsistence was based on hunting, collecting, and harvesting.

Clans were apt to own land in valley, foothill, and mountain areas, providing them with the resources of many different ecological niches. Individual lineages or families owned specific resource areas within the clan territory. Most inland Luiseño clans also owned fishing and gathering sites on the coast, also part of Luiseño territory. Although any given village had access to a wide array of necessary resources, flourishing systems of trade and exchange gave them access to the resources of their neighboring villages and of distant peoples.
1 Final Corona Regional Medical Center Expansion Project Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Report, prepared by ICF International, April 2013.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-2
Gabrielino/Tongva subsistence was based on a composite hunting and gathering strategy that included large and small land animals, sea mammals, river and ocean fish, and a variety of vegetal resources. Acorns were a major food staple, but the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Generally, Gabrielino settlements were created at the intersection of several ecozones. The majority of the population drifted as families to temporary hillside or coastal camps throughout the year, returning to the central location on ritual occasions or when resources were low and it was necessary to live on stored foods.

Gabrielino/Tongva territory included the watersheds of the San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles Rivers; portions of the Santa Monica and Santa Ana Mountains; the Los Angeles Basin; the coast from Aliso Creek to Topanga Creek; and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands. The Gabrielino/Tongva had a rich and varied material culture. Technological and artistic items included shells set in asphaltum, carvings, paintings, an extensive steatite industry, baskets, and a wide range of stone, shell, and bone objects that were both utilitarian and decorative.

The Gabrielino/Tongva inhabited some 50 to 100 permanent villages in fertile lowlands along streams and rivers and in sheltered areas along the coast at the time of European contact. Larger permanent villages most likely had populations that averaged 50 to 200 persons. Sedentary villages also had smaller satellite villages at varying distances; these remained connected to the larger villages through economic, religious, and social ties. The Native American village nearest the project site was at Temescal Hot Springs, while the largest Native American village near the project was that of Hurumpa, located on the southern edge of what is now the City of Riverside.
(b) Prehistoric Cultural Setting2 Occupation of the region appears to have begun approximately 9,000 years before present (BP), based on excavations at sites near Lake Elsinore and in Diamond Valley Lake. Reports produced as a result of recent large-scale excavations at Diamond Valley Lake provide extensive detail of the prehistory of the inland region.

The chronology developed for the Diamond Valley Lake Project, based on radiocarbon dates and projectile point typology, is similar to that of Warren in the early phases of prehistory. The Diamond Valley Lake chronology begins with the Paleo Indian period dating from 12,000 to 9,500 BP. The Early Archaic (9,500– 7,000 BP), Middle Archaic (7,000–4,000 BP), and Late Archaic 4,000–1,500 BP) Periods correlate with Warren’s chronology, which is the latter part of the Lake Mojave, the Pinto, and the Gypsum Periods. In most aspects, the Diamond Valley Lake sites appear to exhibit the same composition and changes over time as desert sites further inland.

During the latter centuries of prehistory in the Diamond Valley Lake area, local populations were increasingly affected by coastal influences. The Saratoga Springs Period (1,500–750 BP) begins with the development of bow and arrow technology, perhaps derived from the inland deserts. The lifeways of this period were abruptly interrupted by the Medieval Warm, a dramatic climatic shift that began around 1,060 BP. Inland areas were largely abandoned, except where populations could concentrate around dependable 2 Final Corona Regional Medical Center Expansion Project Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Report, prepared by ICF International, April 2013.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-3
water sources. The Medieval Warm ended about 575 BP, and population returned to the area during the Late Prehistoric Period (700–410 BP). The Protohistoric Period (410–180 BP) was the final period of prehistoric occupation at Diamond Valley Lake. This period was marked by the development of ceramics and Cottonwood arrow points, and the arrival of Europeans along the coast of California. (c) Historic Cultural Setting
Historical resources are buildings, structures, sites, places, or objects which are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources or a local register of historical resources. CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5. Architectural, engineering, or landscape resources from the historic period such as buildings, roads, bridges, aqueducts, or agricultural properties that are determined to be historically significant or significant in architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Mission Period. European settlement of California began with the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769. The first known European exploration in Riverside County was in 1772 by a party led by Captain Pedro Fages. Four years later, Juan Bautista de Anza crossed the area en-route to Mission San Gabriel. The founding of Mission San Gabriel in 1771, San Juan Capistrano in 1776, and San Luis Rey in 1798 had a profound effect on local Native American populations. The mission fathers of Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Luis Rey gradually began colonizing the interior valleys in what is now Riverside County.

During this period, Native American groups became increasingly sedentary and learned Spanish. They provided the labor force for the mission and ranchos.

Mexican California. Mexico, including California, won independence from Spain in 1821. A decree of secularization followed in 1834. By 1846, much of the land in the region had been converted from Church- owned properties to privately held ranchos. In 1846, Governor Pio Pico issued lands including the project area to Bernardo Yorba as part of the La Sierra Rancho Land Grant.

American Period. The acquisition of California by the United States at the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, and the discovery of gold in 1850, brought many Euro-Americans into California and promoted further cultural changes. The state developed rapidly, being admitted to statehood in 1850. However, the great influx of population was primarily limited to central California, in San Francisco and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevadas. Southern California grew very slowly during this time. The process of surveying and mapping the area began in 1852, when Henry Washington and a small party of surveyors ascended the San Bernardino Mountains and established the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. (d) Archaeological Records Search and Field Assessment Results Archaeology is the recovery and study of material evidence of human life and culture of past ages. Over time, this material evidence becomes buried, fragmented or scattered or otherwise hidden from view. It is not always evident from a field survey if archaeological resources exist within a given area. Thus, the possible presence of archaeological materials must often be determined based upon secondary indicators, including the presence of geographic, vegetative, and rock features which are known or thought to be associated with

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-4
early human life and culture, as well as knowledge of events or material evidence in the surrounding area.

Archaeological resources may include both prehistoric remains and remains dating to the historical period.

Prehistoric (or Native American) archaeological resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, rock art, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottle dumps, ceramic scatters, privies, foundations, and burials and are generally associated in California with the Spanish Mission Period to the mid-20th century of the American Period. (i) Cultural Resource Records Search
A records search for the project area and a one-mile radius around it was conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC houses the pertinent archaeological site and survey information necessary to determine whether previously recorded cultural resources exist within the study area boundaries. The objectives of this archival research was (1) to establish the status and extent of previously recorded sites, surveys, and excavations within the project area, and (2) to note what types of sites might be expected to occur within the project area based on the existing data from archaeological sites within one mile of the project area. The search included a review of cultural resources studies and sites on file at the EIC and a review of the most up-to-date listings in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and the Historic Property Data File (HPD). In addition, historic USGS 7.5-minute, 15-minute, and 30-minute topographic quadrangle maps and General Land Office (GLO) plat maps were reviewed.

Results of the records search indicated that numerous cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the project site. Eight of these studies include portions of the project area. One historic period site was previously recorded within the project area; known as Sky Ranch (33-16976); this site in Mabey Canyon consists of a small masonry shed, a metal water tank, concrete residence and aircraft hangar foundations, arroyo stone walls and bridge, and other remnant landscaping. The bridge was evaluated as eligible for the California Register as a separate property.

Eight additional cultural resources have been documented within one mile of the project site, five of which are prehistoric archaeological sites and three of which are historic-period built resources. There are no properties listed in the National Register, the California Register, the CHL, or the CPHI within a one-mile radius of the project area. In addition, no properties listed in the Historic Properties Directory match the location of the project area.

Site research confirmed documentation of historic-period mining activity within the project area. Eight adjacent mining claims were filed in 1917 by Leo Kroonen of Corona: Big 4, Black Chief, Dutch Republic, Keno, Kroonen, Little Canyon, Victor, and White Clay. However, there is indication of only minimal mining activities within the northwest portion of these claims (likely the Big 4, Little Canyon, and Victor claims) into the 1920s, and the volume of production was not large. This is consistent with the lack of discernible excavations conclusively attributable to historic period mining operations within the project area (see Field Assessment results below).

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-5
(ii) Cultural Field Assessment
On April 10 and May 8, 2013, LSA archaeologists Riordan Goodwin and Gini Austerman conducted a reconnaissance survey of all accessible areas of the 270.9 acres that are planned for development. Due to the thick vegetation and steep topography, the surveyed areas were limited to ridge tops, accessible canyon bottoms, and road cuts.

Overall, ground visibility was poor, averaging approximately 10 percent due to obstruction from vegetation over the majority of the project surface. Mabey Canyon has been severely disturbed by agricultural activities, the development of Sky Ranch, the debris basin and associated channelization and flow-control structures of the creek in Mabey Canyon. Some of the ridge-tops have been graded for fire roads and several (recent) geological test borings.

The historic period Sky Ranch site (33-16976) was resurveyed and conditions are generally consistent with previous site record assessments. However, an unusual erosion control structure composed of an alignment of 30+ 1940s–1950s cars buried on their sides was noted on the south side of Mabey Canyon Road adjacent to the site boundary. Since its origin and date of deposition could not be determined, it was not added to the site or formally documented as a historic period feature. In addition, two adjacent isolated excavations were noted approximately 120 feet north of the project area. Although these could be mining test pits, this could not be confirmed as the excavations are nearly 0.5 mile from the nearest documented mining claim, located approximately 0.2 mile west of the project boundary.

No discernible previously undocumented cultural resources were identified within the accessible portions of the project area.

In addition, the project site includes one single-family home 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). Miscellaneous vacated buildings, used in conjunction with a former horse stable enterprise, are located 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. None of these structures are over 45 years of age. (iii) Senate Bill 18 Consultation
The City of Corona contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search for the proposed General Plan Amendment (which includes the project area) in June 2013.

The NAHC responded on June 24, 2013, indicating there are no Native American traditional cultural places (TCPs) documented within the General Plan Amendment area. The NAHC also provided a list of Native American contacts with traditional lands or cultural places located in the vicinity of the project area. The City solicited formal Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation requests from nine individuals representing eight Native American groups (the correspondence list for the individuals/groups is attached to the Supplementary Cultural Resources Assessment report included in Appendix E of this EIR) on July 16, 2013.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-6
At the direction of the City, LSA subsequently submitted a supplementary SLF search request to address modifications to the annexation area boundary on October 24, 2013.3 The NAHC responded on November 7 indicating that there are Native American TCPs documented within the revised study area.

Ms. Tuba Ozdil and Ms. Anna Hoover, representatives of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, provided letters to the City formally requesting SB 18 consultation, that the Pechanga be involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process including notification of public hearings and scheduled approvals, that a project-specific SLF search be conducted, and receipt of all documents pertaining to this project.4 Ms. Hoover indicated that the Tribe’s records do not show any previously recorded Native American resources on the project site. However, Ms. Hoover stated the site is within the Pechanga Tribe’s traditional territory. Ms. Hoover also requested that both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitors be present during all earthmoving activities including mass grading, brushing, grubbing and utility installation.

Ms. Hoover further asserted that the Tribe considers any resources located on the project site to be Pechanga cultural resources.

Mr. Joseph Ontiveros, a representative of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, also submitted letters to the City indicating that although the site it is outside the existing reservation, the project area does fall within the bounds of Soboba’s Tribal Traditional Use Areas. Mr. Ontiveros’ stated that the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requests the following:

Government-to-government consultation in accordance with SB18.

That the transfer of information to the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the progress of this project should be done as soon as new developments occur.

That the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians continues to act as a consulting tribal entity for this project.

That Native American monitors from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Cultural Resources Department be present during any ground-disturbing proceedings including surveys and archaeological testing.

That proper procedures be taken and requests of the tribe be honored. (2) Paleontological Resources
Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources represent a limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in this section, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints from a previous geologic period. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic formations containing those localities. 3 Annexation boundary was revised to remove two parcels, APNs 275-040-004 (7.5 acres) and 275-040-005 (20.0 acres), from the proposed annexation area, for a total area reduction of 27.5 acres. 4 Ms. Tuba Ozdil’s and Mr. Joseph Ontiveros’ initial SB 18 correspondence is attached to the Supplementary Cultural Resources Assessment report included in Appendix E of this EIR. Ms. Hoover’s and Mr. Joseph Ontiveros’ correspondence is included Appendix A of this EIR within the NOP comment letters.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-7
(a) Geology
The Skyline Heights project is crossed by the Elsinore Fault and lies south-east of the Chino Fault (the northern branch of the Elsinore Fault). The Elsinore Fault bounds the northeast side of the Santa Ana Mountains, while the Chino Fault trends northwest and bounds the east side of the Chino (Puente) Hills. In the vicinity of the project site, the Elsinore Fault separates the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics and underlying Jurassic Bedford Canyon Formation on the southwest from an upper Cretaceous through lower Tertiary sequence of sedimentary rocks that crop out southwest of the Chino Fault. The upper Cretaceous sequence includes the Baker Canyon Formation, Ladd Formation, and Williams Formation, while the lower Tertiary (Paleocene) sequence includes the Silverado Formation. Pleistocene terrace deposits are located on the larger flattened ridge tops within the project site boundaries, and overlie the deeper Tertiary and Cretaceous sequences. (b) Paleontology
Generally, the age of the Jurassic Bedford Canyon Formation is based on abundant marine fossil ammonites, pelecypods, and brachiopods. The Cretaceous age of the marine formations is also based on the ammonites, gastropods, and pelecypods that they contain. All the Mesozoic formations, which include both Jurassic- and Cretaceous-age formations, have historically produced dinosaur and reptile fossils.

The Paleocene age of the Silverado Formation is based on oysters, pelecypods, and gastropods that it contains. The earliest record of fossil Cenozoic plants comes from the coal beds in the Corona and Alberhill area of the Elsinore Trough.
(c) Paleontology Records Search and Field Assessment Results (i) Paleontological Resource Records Search
In 2006, Robert E. Reynolds, LSA Paleontologist and Senior Cultural Resource Manager, conducted a paleontological resources records search utilizing references available in local libraries and the LSA Riverside office library to determine in part the sensitivity for paleontological resources to occur in the project area. Sedimentary rocks in the Santa Ana Mountains are related to oil-bearing strata in the Los Angeles Basin and, as such, have been of special interest to geologists. Early paleontological and structural studies in the area have been followed by relatively recent updates that have been more regionally specific, correlating and clarifying earlier studies and adding to the body of data by detailed mapping and limited faunal studies. The project area is covered by geologic mapping recorded on the Corona South quadrangle, eastern Puente Hills, and on the Santa Ana Sheet.

Based on the records search results, the Santa Ana Mountains contain sediments that were deposited through the middle Mesozoic and lower Cenozoic time. The following list of formations is presented in order of deposition, the oldest first, putting the depositional history on the project site into stratigraphic perspective.

Mesozoic Era (201 million years ago)

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-8
o Jurassic Period (201-145 million years ago). Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbm). Limestone containing ammonites and rhynchonellid brachiopods. o Cretaceous Period (145-66 million years ago). Cretaceous Volcanics (Kvem, Kvsp). Santiago Peak Volcanics are basaltic andesite, andesite dacite, and rhyolite.

Cretaceous Plutonic Complex (Kcg, Kgu, Khg, Ktgb). Granitic and gabbroic rocks making up plutons of multiple compositions.

Ladd Canyon Formation (Kl).

Holz Shale Member (Klhs). Shale and sandstone with locally abundant molluscan megafossils.

Baker Canyon Conglomerate Member (Klbc). Conglomerate and pebble sandstones, the latter containing locally abundant mollusks indicating deposition in shallow water.

Williams Formation (Kw). Conglomerates overlying the Ladd Formation.

Cenozoic Era (66-0 million years ago)5 o Tertiary Period. Silverado Formation (Tsi). These earliest Tertiary (Paleocene) rocks are interfingering marine and continental sandstones, silts, conglomerates, and clays. Non- marine sediments contain clay beds with lignite seams and fresh- and brackish-water fossil invertebrates and plants; overlying marine sediments have yielded marine invertebrates. o Quaternary Period (3-0 million years ago). Quaternary Older and Younger Alluvium (Qvo & Qo). Pleistocene older and younger alluvial deposits border the northern Santa Ana Mountains and represent fan and terrace deposits that generally drain into the Santa Ana River.

Locality References. Upper Cretaceous localities have been reported from within the project area. These marine formations contain six localities that have produced ammonites, gastropods, and pelecypods. It is highly likely that the marine mechanism that concentrated these shell beds also collected remains of vertebrate fossils.

The lower Paleocene Silverado Formation within the project site contains two known localities with oysters, pelecypods, and gastropods. It is likely that vertebrate fossils occur in shell bed concentrations. The 10 clay and lignite mines and prospects recorded among Wardlow, Mabey, and Tin Mine Canyons have good potential for fossil plants.

Dinosaurs and Mesozoic reptiles are reported from Jurassic and Cretaceous formations of the Santa Ana Mountains, which includes the project site, and thus such fossil-bearing formations may be located on-site. The review of available literature located the following records:
5 The Cenozoic Era includes the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary Periods; however, the Paleogene and Neogene Periods are collectively referred to as the “Tertiary” Period, which encompasses the time period between 66 million and 3 million years before present.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-9
Locality B1. A string of nine vertebrae from an elasmosaurid plesiosaur is known from the Jurassic Bedford Canyon Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains. This is the oldest marine reptile from the Peninsular Range Province and also the only Jurassic specimen from the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality L1. A hadrosaur maxilla with dentition associated with plesiosaur vertebrae is known from the Cretaceous Ladd Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality L2. A hadrosaur vertebra is known from the Cretaceous Ladd Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality L3. A hadrosaur tibia is known from the Cretaceous Ladd Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality L4. The Cretaceous Ladd Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains has produced hadrosaur foot and lower limb elements as well as vertebra.

Locality L5. The turtle (Basilemys) is known from the Cretaceous Ladd Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality L6. The Cretaceous Ladd Formation has produced additional turtle remains from another locality in the Santa Ana Mountains.

Locality W1. A dinosaur limb is known from the upper Cretaceous Williams Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.
(ii) Paleontological Field Assessment
A field assessment of the project area was conducted by Dr. David Berry, Tina Tuttle, Jeff Vadala, and Jodi Dalton, on May 2, 4, 11, and 17, 2006, and identified two fossil localities. These localities are outcrop exposures with abundant invertebrate remains (shells of gastropods and pelecypods). It is highly likely that the currents that concentrated these shell beds also collected and concentrated the remains of vertebrate fossils.

SIR0601-LSA 06-5-03-1: Mabey Canyon. Cretaceous Ladd Formation has dense gray siliceous limestone bed with abundant mollusks, coral, bryozoa, and microfossils.

SIR0601-LSA 06-5-05-1: Chase Drive Extension (Rattlesnake Hill). Baker Canyon member of the Cretaceous Ladd Formation has a dense, blue, fine silty sandstone bed that weathers tan and contains abundant mollusks, including the gastropod Actaeonella oviformis and the pelecypods Arca sp. and Crassitella sp. This is very close to Locality 6, which produced four other genera of gastropods and pelecypods. It is highly likely that the currents that concentrated these shells also concentrated the remains of vertebrate fossils.

The Pleistocene sediments found consist of coarse, deeply-weathered fanglomerate that appears too coarse to contain fossil remains.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-10
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) State Level
(a) Archaeological, Historical Resources
(i) California Register of Historical Resources
Per California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria.6 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places.7 To be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, a pre-historic or historic property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following resources:

California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward. 6 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(b). 7
California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(d).

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-11
Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:

Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5.8 Individual historical resources.

Historical resources contributing to historic districts.

Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.
(ii) California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of discretionary projects occurring in the State. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources (PRC § 21083.2.). As defined in Section 21083.2(g) a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 broadens the approach to CEQA by using the term “historical resource” instead of “unique archaeological resource.” The CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain archaeological resources may also have significance. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological 8 Those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-12
site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, which refer to a unique archaeological resource. The Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(c)(4)). (b) Senate Bill 18
SB 18 was signed into law in September 2004, and became effective on March 1, 2005. SB 18 amended California Civil Code Section 815.3 to permit California Native American tribes recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to hold conservation easements on terms mutually satisfactory to the tribe and the landowner. The term “California Native American tribe” is defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC.”9 The bill also requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county’s general plan, the city or county consult with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. (Cal. Gov Code §65352.3) SB 18 also applies to the adoption or amendment of specific plans. This bill requires the planning agency to refer to the California Native American tribes specified by the NAHC and to provide them with opportunities for involvement. (Cal. Gov Code §65351.)
(c) California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are discovered on site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition.

If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. This regulation is applicable to any project where ground disturbance would occur. (d) Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are also afforded protection by environmental legislation set forth under CEQA.

Appendix G (part V) of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, stating that “a project will normally result in a significant impact on the environment if it will …disrupt or adversely affect a paleontologic resource or site or unique geologic feature, except as part of a scientific study.” Section 5097.5 of the PRC specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. 9 SB18 Tribal Consultation, State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines Supplement to General Plan Guidelines, April 15, 2005.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-13
(2) Local
(a) City of Corona
The Historic Resources Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies regarding the conservation and management of archaeological and paleontological resources. The project’s consistency with the applicable policies is discussed in the impact analysis below.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
(1) Historic Resources
As described above, to determine the presence of any known historic resources on the project site and within a one-mile radius of the project site, an extensive records search and pedestrian survey was conducted. The search included a review of cultural resources studies and sites on file at the EIC and a review of the most up-to-date listings in the National Register, California Register, California Inventory of Historic Resources, CHL, CPHI, and HPD. In addition, historic USGS maps were reviewed.

The survey process undertaken for purposes of this evaluation was conducted per OHP instructions, which gives a 45-year threshold for surveying properties for significance. Those properties that were of post-1969 construction (under 45 years of age) were not documented in the project survey unless they exhibited potentially “exceptional” importance.
(2) Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
LSA conducted a literature and records search of the project area at the EIC located at the University of California Riverside and to determine if archaeological resources are located within the project area. The search included a review of all available cultural resource surveys and site records within the project area and within a one-mile radius. In addition, a field survey of the project site was conducted to observe the presence of any visible archaeological resources on the site.

With regard to paleontological resources, LSA reviewed geological and paleontological literature and the geological maps of Corona and its surroundings. The geologic context was analyzed, and the paleontological sensitivity of sediments underlying the project area was evaluated based on the past finds in the region.

Impacts on cultural resources from the project were evaluated by determining whether ground disturbance activities could affect areas that could contain any resources. Impacts on paleontological resources were evaluated similar to the way in which impacts to buried archaeological resources were evaluated, that is by determining whether ground disturbance activities would affect areas that could contain any a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 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 cultural resources that are utilized as the thresholds of

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-14
significance in this section (Thresholds 1-5). Accordingly, the project may create a significant environmental impact if it would:

Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement 4.D-1);
Threshold 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement 4.D-2);
Threshold 3: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (refer to Impact Statement 4.D-3);
Threshold 4: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (refer to Impact Statement 4.D-4); and
Threshold 5: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with cultural resources (refer to Impact Statement

4.D-5).
c. Project Design Features
The project does not include any Project Design Features (PDFs) specific to cultural resources. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Historic Resources
Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

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. According to the records search, no previously recorded historical resources were identified within the project site and no new historical resources within the project site were identified during the pedestrian survey. Further, the single-family residence and nursery within the annexation area are not 45 years of age and do not otherwise meet the criteria for listing in the California Register and do not qualify as historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. As a result, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. No impact would occur in this regard.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-15
(2) Archaeological Resources
Threshold 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

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. No archaeological or Native American resources were identified within the project development footprint area in prior surveys. However, several resources do exist within a one-mile radius of the site. This suggests that the project area has a low to moderate potential to encompass historical period archaeological or prehistoric archaeological resources, despite the minimal historic-period mining activity within the project area. Current project plans do not include impacts to the Sky Ranch site’s (APN 275-040-015) bridge that was evaluated as eligible for the California Register. In the event project plans change to include potential impacts to the bridge, the impacts would need to be evaluated in a supplemental study.

As part of the Native American Consultation conducted for the project, letters were sent to the eight Native American Tribes provided by the NAHC in July and October 2013. The letters included a brief project description and asked that the tribes to contact the City with input regarding the presence of cultural resources in the project area. Two tribes, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (Tribes) requested further consultation and future updates in regards to the project. The Tribes requested that Native American monitors be present on-site during any ground-disturbing activities, including surveys and archaeological testing.

Despite the lack of known resources within the site, correspondence from representatives of the Pechanga and Soboba Bands of Luiseño Indians indicates the site has the potential to support previously undiscovered Native American resources. Of particular relevance, Ms. Hoover of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, states that as the site includes dense vegetation, unidentified cultural resources may exist on the site. She states that the location of the site at the base of the Cleveland National Forest/Santa Ana Mountains likely contains a deep accumulation of alluvium which would have covered Luiseño habitations and villages over time. Additionally, she states that there are several drainages that flow from the mountains that would have supplied fresh water to any inhabitants in the area. Thus, the potential for impacting surface and subsurface cultural resources is high. In light of these considerations, it is concluded that unknown significant Native American cultural resources could be unearthed during project excavation activities. The project would involve surface disturbance and grading, and would require trenching for utilities. Grading and trenching as well as other construction ground-disturbing actions have the potential to disturb and destroy cultural resources. Disturbance of significant cultural resources would result in a significant adverse impact. Thus, Mitigation Measure CR-1 is prescribed in the event that unknown cultural materials are discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure CR-1 also includes provisions for Native American monitors from affected Tribes to observe all project-related grading activities, and the implementation of a Treatment Agreement between affected Tribes. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, potentially significant impacts to unknown resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-16
Further, given that the City has fulfilled its obligations for Native American Consultation pursuant to SB18 and will continue to work with the Tribes to facilitate monitoring during future site development per Mitigation Measure CR-1 to ensure proper treatment of newly discovered resources, impacts to Native American resources would be less than significant with mitigation. (3) Paleontological Resources
Threshold 3: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

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.

The paleontological resources assessments for the project found that the fossiliferous Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation and Upper Cretaceous Williams Formation occur on the project site. In addition, the fossiliferous Paleocene Silverado Formation occurs within the project boundaries. These three formations have potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Construction for the project would include grading and excavation for the development of housing pads, access roads, sewers, drains, culverts, and utility-related infrastructure that could impact paleontological resources in these three formations. Disturbance to paleontological resources could result in a potentially significant impact. Thus, Mitigation Measures CR-2 to CR-4 have been prescribed to address this potentially significant impact. The mitigation measures require preparation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) to be implemented during construction activities for the project. The PRIMP would provide appropriate treatment measures for paleontological resources potentially impacted by the project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
(4) Human Remains
Threshold 4: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

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 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.

The project site is not a formal cemetery and is not adjacent to a formal cemetery. The project site is not known to contain human remains interred outside formal cemeteries, nor is it known to be located on a burial ground or reported to have yielded human remains. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities within the project site, compliance with State law (Health and Safety Code § 7050.5) (HSC § 7050.5) would be required. These requirements are imposed on any construction activity in which human remains are detected, and include the following provisions:

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-17
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
o The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and o If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (PRC § 5097.98), or Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance pursuant to PRC § 5097.98(e).
o The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant. o The most likely descendant is identified by the NAHC, fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site; or
o The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Adherence to provisions of Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 is required of all development projects.

Compliance with existing state law sufficiently mitigates 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.
(5) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold 5: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with cultural resources.

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.

The project would comply with all applicable State and federal regulations regarding cultural resources as described above, and therefore no significant impacts regarding conflicts with such laws would result from project implementation. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with applicable policies contained in the City’s General Plan regarding cultural resources, as discussed below in Table 4.D-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As discussed in Table 4.D-1, the project would not conflict with the applicable policies of the City’s General Plan and as such impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-18
Table 4.D-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Community Development – Historic Resources
Goal 4.3 – Recognize the importance of
archeological and paleontological resources and
ensure the identification and protection of those
resources within the City of Corona.

Consistent. No archaeological or Native American resources were identified within the project development footprint area in prior surveys. However, several resources do exist within a 1- mile radius of the site. In addition, correspondence with Tribes in the area indicate cultural resources may be located within the project boundaries. This suggests that the project area has a low to moderate potential to encompass historical period
archaeological or prehistoric archaeological resources, despite the minimal historic-period mining activity within the project area. Nonetheless, significant buried cultural resources could occur within the project area and it is possible these materials could be unearthed during project excavation activities.

Furthermore, the project site is located on fossiliferous formations known to have produced fossils. The project would implement mitigation measures to appropriately treat
archaeological and paleontological resources should they be discovered during project construction activities.

Policy 4.3.3 – Archaeological resources found
prior to or during construction shall be
evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and
appropriate mitigation measures applied,
pursuant to Section 21083.2 of CEQA, before the
resumption of development activities. Any
measures applied shall include the preparation
of a report meeting professional standards,
which shall be submitted to the appropriate
CHRIS information center.

Consistent. In the event of an archaeological discovery, the project would implement Mitigation Measures CR-1. This would ensure that all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area would be diverted until a qualified archaeologist could assess the nature and significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures.

Treatment measures typically include developing avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigating impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation.

Policy 4.3.4 – Any project that involves earth- disturbing within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or
culturally sensitive, shall require evaluation of
the site by a qualified archaeologist retained by
the project applicant. The applicant shall
implement the recommendations of
archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City
Planning Department.

Consistent. LSA Associates, Inc. prepared project-specific archaeological and paleontological resources assessment reports, which include recommendations for the discovery, handling, and treatment of any resources encountered during site grading activities.

Policy 4.3.5 – Any project that involves earth- disturbing activities in previously undisturbed soils that have been determined to be
archaeologically or culturally sensitive shall
require consultation by the applicant with
interested federally recognized American Indian
Tribe(s) that have a traditional cultural
affiliation with the project area and/or the
resources affected by the project, for the
purposes of determining archaeological and
cultural resources impacts and creating
appropriate mitigation to address such impacts.

Consistent. The project applicant has conducted tribal
consultation in accordance with this policy, and formal government-to-government consultation with the City of Corona has also been initiated in accordance with SB18. As required by Mitigation Measure CR-1 below, tribal monitors would be present for all site grading activities.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
Table 4.D-1 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-19
Goals and Policies Consistency
The applicant shall also arrange for monitoring
earth-disturbing activities by interested
federally recognized American Indian Tribe(s)
that have a traditional cultural affiliation with
the project area and/or the resources affected
by the project, if requested.

Policy 4.3.6 – Any project that involves earth- disturbing activities in soil or rock units known or reasonably suspected to be fossil-bearing
shall require monitoring by a qualified
paleontologist retained by the project applicant
for the duration of excavation or trenching.

Consistent. As provided by Mitigation Measure CR-2 below, a qualified paleontological monitor would be present for all site grading activities as determined appropriate by the PRIMP.

Policy 4.3.7 – Paleontological resources found
prior to or during construction shall be
evaluated by a qualified paleontologist, and
appropriate mitigation measures applied,
pursuant to Section 21083.2 of CEQA, before the
resumption of development activities. Any
measures applied shall include the preparation
of a report meeting professional standards,
which shall be submitted to the Riverside
County Museum of Natural History.

Consistent. Mitigation Measures CR-2 to CR-4 address potential impacts to paleontological resources. Per the prescribed mitigation measures, a qualified vertebrate paleontologist would be retained by the City or project proponent to determine areas that would require paleontological monitoring during initial ground disturbance. Collected fossils, if any, would be transported to a paleontological laboratory for processing where they would be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation. Following analysis, a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens would be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

Policy 4.3.8 – In the event of the discovery of a
burial, human bone, or suspected human bone,
all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the
find shall halt immediately and the area of the
find shall be protected and the project applicant
immediately shall notify the Riverside County
Coroner of the find and comply with the
provisions of the California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5, including P.R.C. Section
5097.98, if applicable. In the event that human
remains are determined to be Native American
human remains the applicant shall consult with
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to determine
the appropriate treatment for the Native
American human remains.

Consistent. Proposed grading activities would be carried out in accordance with applicable laws regarding cultural resources, including the treatment of human remains and notification of tribal organizations, as applicable.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-20

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative area for cultural resources is the regional tribal areas for the traditional cultural territories of the Gabrielino/Tongva Indians, Luiseño Indians, and possibly the Cahuilla Indians. The cumulative are, also includes the City of Corona. As described above, the project would result in no impacts to historic resources; therefore, the project does not have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts regarding historic resources. Implementation of the project would include mitigation measures to identify, recover, and/or record any cultural and/or paleontological resource that may occur within the limits of the project site. Potential impacts associated with human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level through adherence to existing State law. There are no projects that would, in combination with the project, result in any significant cumulative impacts on archaeological, or paleontological resources, or in impacts to human remains. Like the project, any other projects within the City or within the regional tribal areas would be required to adhere to similar mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for any individual or cumulative impacts. On a cumulative level, data recovered from a site, combined with data from other sites in the region, would allow for the examination and evaluation of the diversity of human activities in the region. Therefore, the project would have less than significant cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the analysis above, the project could result in a potentially significant impact to archaeological/Native American and paleontological resources. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:

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 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.

December 2015 4.D. Cultural Resources
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-21
If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

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 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.

4.D. Cultural Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.D-22

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With compliance with applicable requirements regarding cultural resources and with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

INTRODUCTION
This section describes existing conditions and the regulatory framework associated with geology and soils and analyzes the potential impacts of the project regarding fault rupture, seismic hazards, ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, expansive soils, and landform/landslide in the City of Corona and in the vicinity of the site. Information in this section is based on information and findings obtained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan (herein referred to as the Geotechnical Report), for Tentative Tract Map No. 36544, prepared by Ginter and Associates, Inc. in April 2014. The Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Regional Geology
The site is located on the northeastern slope the Temescal Canyon area of the Santa Ana Mountains near their boundary with Temescal Canyon (see Plate I; Elsinore-Chino Trough, of Appendix F, Geotechnical Report, of this Draft EIR). The Santa Ana Mountains are one of many northwest-trending Southern California ranges separated by broad valleys within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic (and structural) Province of Southern California. The province extends from the Transverse Ranges on the north to Baja California on the south.

The Santa Ana Mountains have a Jurassic and Cretaceous metamorphic and igneous core on which Cretaceous through Pliocene marine and non-marine rocks have been deposited. Along the northeast flank of the mountains, the Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks were strongly tilted and folded during later regional deformation (see Plate IV of the Geotechnical Report). Pleistocene to modern sediments derived mainly from the upper reaches of the Santa Ana Mountains locally mantle those rocks. These sediments are mainly elevated Pleistocene river terrace and alluvial fan deposits and Holocene fans on the floors of Temescal and Santa Ana Canyons and consisting of modern alluvium in incised drainages and toe-slope colluvium. The highlands of the Peninsular Ranges are formed in an eroded granitic/metamorphic basement complex, and the lowlands consist of sediment-filled basins. Northwest trending “main” ridges and “spur” ridges with steep sides dominate the geomorphology. Low-order drainages feed three high-order drainages that extend over large areas of the northeastern Santa Ana Mountains. These high-order drainages are, from north to south, Mabey, Kroonen and Tin Mine Canyons (see Plate I in the Geotechnical Report in Appendix F of this Draft EIR). Both following and breaching the local geologic structures and lithologies, these major drainage are commonly “v”-shaped in their upper and middle reaches, where incised into bedrock and flat in their lower reaches.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-2
The northwest-trending Peninsular Ranges blocks parallel regional continental borderland faults that extend from the Mojave Desert in the east to the Channel Islands on the west. These fault zones are typically exhibit right-lateral strike-slip with associated reverse and normal dip-slip components. The approximately 150- mile long Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone) that parallels the northeast Santa Ana Mountains is a classic example.
(2) Site Conditions
The project site is located at the mouths of Mabey Canyon, Tin Mine, and Kroonen Canyons immediately to the east of the Cleveland National Forest. The site consists of two geographic sections separated by Mabey Canyon. To the north of Mabey Canyon, the area is in an almost natural state and characterized by steep topography with a thin soil mantle. Remnants of exploration roads associated with clay mining occurred in the Temescal Canyon area from the early 1900’s are evident. However, no large-scale mining operations appear to have occurred in this area. The area to the north of Mabey Canyon generally consists of steep- sided northeast trending “main” ridges with similar steep-sided “spur” ridges on the northeastern flank of the Santa Ana Mountains. Side-slope ratios vary from 2:1 to 1:1 with local gentler and steeper sections.

These configurations result in v-shaped canyons and narrow, spine-like ridges. Also in this area, three low- order canyons drain northwesterly into Wardlow Canyon and the one drains the center of this area into high-order Mabey Canyon to the south. These major drainages are v-shaped in their upper and middle reaches, where incised into bedrock, and flat in their lower reaches. The Mabey Canyon drainage flows into a large flood control basin near its mouth (see Plate I in the Geotechnical Report). The basin intercepts flow and directs flow northeast via lined channels into Temescal Canyon and eventually, the Santa Ana River system.

The area to the south of Mabey Canyon was subjected to clay prospecting and mining in the early 1900’s.

One successful clay prospect was the McKnight Clay Mine southeast adjacent to the area (see Plate V in the Geotechnical Report), which now serves as a tree nursery. Other poorly-preserved and undeveloped prospects and related access roads are scattered over the site. For example, an exploration trench (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE), 2005) encountered a small mine entrance on-site. As with the northern portion of the site, northwest trending ridges and V-shaped canyons dominate the geomorphology. (a) Stratigraphy
Cretaceous Trabuco Formation
The highland portions of the project site are underlain by resistant Cretaceous and Paleocene sedimentary rocks that are locally mantled by older Pleistocene alluvial "terrace" deposits. The lowland surfaces support mainly Holocene alluvial channel and fan deposits (see Figures 1 through 7 in the Geotechnical Report). The Cretaceous Trabuco Formation (Kt) is mainly brown, weakly to moderately lithified cobble to boulder conglomerate, marked by occasional lenses and beds of distinctive maroon silty conglomerate that crops out in the southwest corner of the site). Clasts are mainly metamorphic, igneous and volcanic fragments that are usually more weathered than clasts within the overlying Ladd Formation. Following the regional structural grain, this formation extends from northwest to southeast south of Tin Mine Canyon. Trenches placed south of the project site (see Plate II in the Geotechnical Report) exposed distinct Trabuco "maroon beds” on the south flank of Tin Mine Canyon, thereby documenting formational continuity across Tin Mine Canyon. This contradicts previous geologic maps (Gray, 1961; Weber, 1977; Gray et al., 2002) that depict the formation “fault-truncated” north of the canyon. The Trabuco Formation grades upward into the Cretaceous Ladd December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-3
Formation. The contact between the two formations is thus arbitrary and herein taken to be the top of the uppermost Trabuco "maroon bed”.1
Cretaceous Ladd Formation
Two formal members, the Baker Canyon Conglomerate and Holz Shale, of the Cretaceous Ladd Formation Conglomerate (Klc) crop-out northwest and south of Kroonen Canyon (see Figures 1 through 7 in the Geotechnical Report). These are were readily identifiable in trenches and, locally identifiable in outcroppings. In contrast, massive conglomerates and sandstones of undifferentiated Ladd Formation are north and east of the canyon, which may also encompass Williams Formation sandstone (see Figures 2, 4 and 5 of the Geotechnical Report). Clearly identifiable and mappable Williams Formation does crop out in the northern part of the site, northwest of Mabey Canyon.2 The Baker Canyon Conglomerate (Klbe) is located at and near the project site. This formation consists of thick-bedded to massive pebble and cobble conglomerate interspersed with buff to gray arkosic to lithic marine sandstone. The lower part of the formation consists mainly of distinctly bedded, volcanic and metamorphic cobble conglomerate. Distinctly inter-bedded buff conglomerate and buff to gray thick-bedded sandstone characterize the upper part of the formation exposed onsite. This unit is generally well-indurated (cemented) below a weathered halo and therefore, supports steep anti-dip and dip slopes, and is a major "ridge former". The Baker Canyon Conglomerate is conformable with, and grades into, both the underlying Trabuco Formation and the overlying Holz Shale Member of the Ladd Formation. The transition zone, based varies from about 50 to about 100-feet thick. 3 Holz Shale (Klh), weathered shale, claystone, siltstone and silty sandstone, forms a narrow V-shaped band typified by subdued, linear topography in the western part of the project site (see Figures 4 and 6 in the Geotechnical Report). The outcrop pattern describes a regional, closed, locally overturned, southeast- plunging syncline (see Plate IV in the Geotechnical Report). This formation unit is locally fossiliferous, gray to bluish gray where fresh and gray to yellowish brown where weathered. Generally, the unit is thin-bedded and has well-developed bedding plane parting. Calcareous concretions up to three feet in diameter occur throughout the Holz Shale. Despite the presence of concretions, the unit is poorly resistant to weathering and forms subdued topography relative to the underlying Cretaceous conglomerate and the overlying Tertiary sandstone. Where observed during prior geologic investigations of the area, the Holz Shale is usually fractured (squeezed) and is replete with small-scale "flow" folds symptomatic of plastic deformation.

This contrasts with the brittle behavior of the overlying and underlying Silverado Formation and Baker Conglomerate where faults, fractures and similar brittle deformation predominate. Local ridges of Baker Canyon Conglomerate and topographic lows carved in previously unidentified Holz Shale. The absence of Tertiary Silverado and the presence of "Cretaceous-against-Cretaceous" relationships suggest limited structural relief and stratigraphic separation. Accordingly, large-scale fault displacements are therefore, not necessary to explain local bedrock geometry and distribution.4 1 Ginter and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, April 2014, page 15. 2 Op. Cit, page 16. 3
Ibid. 4
Op. Cit., pages 16-17.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-4
A large lithesome of well-indurated conglomerate of the Ladd Formation interspersed with scattered sandstone beds underlies most of the area south of Mabey Canyon and north of Kroonen Canyon. Similar to the Baker Conglomerate, except that it is typically massive with few plane partings, the geological structural pattern is not particularly well-defined. Refractive seismic lines suggest that at depth, this unit is well lithified.5 The local Cretaceous Williams Formation (Kw) formation comprises abundant, granitoid cobbles and boulders with local absence of stratification. The granitoid clasts differentiate this formation from the Ladd Formation that supports mainly volcanic and metamorphic cobbles. This formation underlies the northern part of the study property and possibly crops out along the ridge northwest of Kroonen Canyon.

Well-cemented fossiliferous beds of the Paleocene Silverado Formation (Tsi) are scattered throughout the on-site Silverado Formation. Non-marine and locally marine light buff, to light gray, to yellow silty sandstone, intercalated red and gray/white claystone and scattered cobble conglomerate characterize the formation. Bedding varies from thin to massive and is usually identifiable in natural and anthropic outcrops.

The sandstone is moderately resistant. The limy fossiliferous beds are very resistant and the claystones are poorly resistant. Consequently, differential erosion of the red clay beds imparts steep, linear strike-parallel ridges and ravines. Hard limy beds form particularly evident spines along some ridgelines. A few to a few tens of feet thick, sedimentary clays derived from nearby clay-rich saprolites that formed on an erosion surface prior to deposition of the remainder of the Silverado Formation. These beds, which may be the lateral equivalent of the Claymont clay bed, were mined for clay at the McKnight Clay Mine and at the Kroonen Clay Prospect. One particular limy, fossiliferous bed is depicted in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix F of this Draft EIR), Figures 6 and 7 (geologic map), along with two smaller, discontinuous ones.

Composed of Ostrea, sp. and other mollusks, this bed is traceable from the northeast property line westward to near the south-center where it is tightly folded into a synform, as attested to by V-shaped outcrop pattern.

The red and limy beds are readily identifiable and often laterally continuous and are thus, excellent local and regional key beds to determine the presence or absence of bedrock faults.6 (b) Alluvial Deposits
Local Quaternary alluvium consists of: (1) Older (Pleistocene) alluvial fan and "terrace" deposits elevated above the modern (Holocene) drainage; and (2) Holocene alluvium occupying the floors of active channels and swales, where detritus is seasonally transported, deposited and eroded. Based on prior studies of the region, underlying alluvial deposits were inferred to be up to 200,000 to 300,000 years old. Both soil- stratigraphic and morpho-stratigraphic hierarchies are useful to assess the age of the Quaternary deposits in the Corona area. A greater than 18-foot-thick cap of older alluvium occurs as an elevated "terrace" along the south side of Mabey Canyon (the "Mabey Fanglomerate”). Trenches in the area have also exposed more than 20 feet of older alluvium (the Kroonen Deposit) near the head of a major tributary to Kroonen Canyon. The Mabey Faglomerate is more than 18 feet thick where it underlies an extensive Pleistocene terrace above Mabey Canyon (see Figure 2 in the Geotechnical Report). These deposits are typically poorly sorted, arkosic to lithic, subanglular to well-rounded sand and gravels, replete with ubiquitous cut-and-fill structures. Also common, are well-sorted, current-laminated sands and moderately sorted basal cobble and boulder beds.

Regionally, this deposit occurs at elevations similar to other high elevation fanglomerates along the east 5 Op. Cit., page 17. 6
Op. Cit, page 18.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-5
flank of the Santa Ana Mountains adjacent to or near the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone; namely, at least several tens of feet above active Temescal Canyon drainages and alluvial fans. Uplift along the Eagle Fault and associated "beheading" of the proximal parts of the fans by erosion has now both cut off these fans from their original source areas and elevated them above Temescal Canyon.7 Another deposit of older alluvium, overlying the Ladd Formation in depositional contact, occurs near the head of Kroonen Canyon (see Figure 4 of the Geotechnical Report). The depth to bedrock is approximately 35 feet at this location. The Kroonen deposits are mainly sand, silty sand and clayey sand. Abundant gravel typical of most regionally extensive alluvial fan deposits is absent, although occasional gravel stringers and "stone lines" are scattered throughout the section.8
(3) Groundwater
Perched groundwater was encountered during prior geologic investigation (borings) at 39 feet below ground surface. No groundwater was encountered during prior fault investigations. Groundwater could potentially be trapped seasonally along alluvium/bedrock contacts and bedrock fractures. Weber (1977) estimated the regional groundwater surface to be 100 ft. to 200 ft. below the existing ground surface.9 Groundwater conditions are described in greater detail in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR.
(4) Seismic Hazards
The site is located in tectonically active Southern California. Figure 4.E-1, Regional Fault Map of Southern California, shows the site in relation to regional faults. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault, as well as the magnitude of the seismic event. The site is similar to most of Southern California with respect to hazards associated with earthquakes. The hazards associated with earthquakes are primary hazards (such as ground shaking and surface rupture) and secondary hazards (such as liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, landsliding, tsunamis, and seiches).

The seismic hazard for the site and the surrounding Corona area is considered high based on the location of nearby active faults. Consequently, the site could experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake originating on any of the nearby faults, discussed below. (a) Earthquake Faults
Faults in California are considered active, potentially active, and inactive based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program. A fault is considered active that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have no documented movement in the last 1.6 million years.

Documented surface displacements have occurred on the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone in the last 11,000 years (Holocene) and the zone is, thus, mapped as an active fault based on the presence of tectonic 7 Op. Cit., page 20. 8
Op. Cit., page 21. 9
Ginter and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, April 25, 2014, page 22.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-6
geomorphic features such as faceted spurs, displaced drainages and linear troughs. The Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone splays into three major strands (see Plates I and IV of the Geotechnical Report) approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the project site. The Chino Fault, which is the easternmost strand, trends north- northwest across the Santa Ana River and along the east side of the Puente Hills, northeast of the study site.

The center strand is mapped as the Main Street Fault which is the northern continuation of the Elsinore Fault. The westernmost splay is the traditionally mapped Whittier Fault. Near Fresno Canyon, the Whittier Fault "bends" west-northwest across Santa Ana Canyon and then resumes a northwest trend along the west flank of the Puente Hills. The southernmost strand(s) of the Whittier Fault is also known as the Eagle Fault.

The project site thus lies within a tectonic wedge formed by the branching of the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone into three identifiable stands. 10 The relationship of the project site to these three Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones is illustrated in Figure 4.E-2, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Project Area. The Main Street Fault appears to die out southeast of Wardlow Canyon, near Mabey Canyon and the northwest corner of the project site (see Plates I and IV of the Geotechnical Report). Two reasonably distinct scarps are particularly evident east of the project site near Mangular Avenue (see Plate III of the Geotechnical Report). Pleistocene alluvial fans that emanate from the high order canyons along the mountain front are beheaded by right lateral slip along the Main Street Fault, are now cut-off from their source canyons and are elevated above Temescal Canyon floor. The California Geological Survey (2003) maps the “main” branch of the Main Street Fault as trending into and terminating near the mesa in the northwest corner of Skyline Heights (similar to Plate I of the Geotechnical Report) with the corresponding Alquist-Priolo zone enclosing the entire mesa. However, the Alquist-Priolo trace of the Main Street Fault is overlain by un-faulted upper Pleistocene sediments and is, thus, not active at the project site.11 The Alquist-Priolo Zones also encompass both the Tin Mine Fault, which also encroaches onto the project site. Based on literature review, aerial photographic analyses, field mapping and logging of about 6000 lineal feet of fault trenches, the on-site part of the Tin Mine Fault is found to be overlain by un-displaced pre- Holocene deposits and is also assessed to be not active according to Alquist Priolo definition.12 The northeast-trending Eagle Fault characteristically thrusts Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks over Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments along the northeast flank of the Santa Ana Mountains (see Plate IV of the Geotechnical Report). A similar fault was mapped to the south of Tin Mine Canyon. Most fault movement occurred in Pliocene time, the earliest displacements along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, which does not place the Eagle Fault in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, local and regional stratigraphic and structural relationships suggest that the Eagle Fault has contributed to slip along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone.

Prior investigators (Gray, 1961; Weber, 1977; Gray et al., 2002) have either inferred or mapped several other faults on, or near, the project site. Based on the present site-specific investigation, these faults either do not exist or are pre-Holocene in age. Evidence points to bedding parallel differential erosion of sandstone and claystone beds in the Silverado Formation as the genesis of lineaments in the Silverado Formation Specifically, the absence of Silverado Formation north of Kroonen Canyon precludes the presence of such a 10 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG),Gray 1961; CDMG 1965;Weber, 1977, Gray et al, 2002; CDMG, 1980, cited in Ginter and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, April 2014. 11 Ginter and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, April 2014, page 30. 12 Op. Cit, pages 27, 28, and 33.

Regional Fault Map of Southern California FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.E-1
Source: Ginter & Associates, Inc., 2014. N
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in the Project Area FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.E-2
Source: Ginter & Associates, Inc., 2014. N
N.A.P.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-9
fault, and trenching exposed no significant faults. The Ladd-Silverado contact and key fossiliferous and mudstone beds within the Silverado Formation are unbroken across the mapped trace of the “Whittier Fault.

The trenching performed on 2005 and 2007 intersected many small faults and shears. These, however, occur near the axial (hinge) trace of the Kroonen syncline, have displacements less than about one to two feet, are carbonate-filled and healed, and in many places capped by unbroken late Pleistocene soils or weathered surfaces. Similar small faults and shears, as exposed in the trenches, occur in the hard, brittle conglomerate of the Ladd Formation north of Kroonen Canyon. Although trenching exposes the faults that have small displacements, no obvious lateral continuity occurs, the displacements are healed and do not displace late Pleistocene weathered surfaced. Further, they have no surface expression and many “die-out” upward and downward within the bedrock.13 Recent fault investigations in the area are illustrated in Figure 4.E-3, Project Site Relative to Recent Fault Investigations. The Cucamonga fault is located approximately 20 miles north of the site. The Cucamonga fault is part of a series of faults coincident with the southern margin of the San Gabriel Mountains known as the Transverse Ranges frontal fault system. The San Fernando fault of this system ruptured during the 1971 magnitude 6.7 San Fernando earthquake. The Sierra Madre fault, continuing west from the termination of the Cucamonga fault at San Antonio Canyon, is located 19.5 miles north-northwest of the site.

The San Bernardino segment of the San Jacinto fault zone is located approximately 25 miles northeast of the site. The San Jacinto fault zone is a system of northwest-trending faults characterized by multiple parallel strands in the northern San Bernardino Valley. These include the Lytle Creek, the Glen Helen, and the Claremont faults. More large historic earthquakes have occurred on the San Jacinto fault than any other fault in Southern California. The San Bernardino Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault may be accommodating much of the motion between the Pacific plate and the North American plate in this area. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities tentatively assigned a 37 percent (+/- 17 percent) probability of a major earthquake on the San Bernardino Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault for the 30-year interval from 1994 to 2024.

The San Bernardino segment of the San Andreas fault zone is located 30 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is one of California's most prominent geological and geographic features and extends from the southeastern portion of the state northwest to the offshore area northwest of Point Arena. The San Andreas fault is characterized by youthful fault scarps, vegetational lineaments, springs, and offset drainages and has produced large historic and pre-historic earthquakes. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities tentatively assigned a 28 percent (+/- 13 percent) probability to a major earthquake occurring on the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the San Andreas Fault between 1994 and 2024. (b) Landslide and Lateral Spreading
Several relatively small, surficial onsite landslides or suspected landslides have been mapped on-site. Most are concentrated in the northern part of the site on steep slopes comprised of Ladd Formation. A moderately large landslide is mapped easterly subjacent to proposed Lots 58 through 64. However, most of the mapped limits of the feature are off-site. Nonetheless, as shown on the Tentative Map, proposed development would be affected by a slide. For instance, removal of slide debris in the process of providing adequate support of 13 Op. Cit, page 30.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-10
the planned fill in this area could prove difficult near a property line that is within the slide limits. As noted, the offsite part of the landslide might need to be investigated in light of the current development plans.

Prior geotechnical investigation of the project site encountered 12.5 feet of landslide debris. Based on field investigation, the entire slide is seemingly a composite of relatively shallow failures associated with fractured and clay-rich Silverado Formation. Currently mapped landslides are seemingly related to the presence of steep natural slopes, colluviated swales and fractured or clay-rich rock. Seepage (i.e. springs) may also contribute to local zones of instability. The generally lithified and steeply dipping bedrock is not usually amenable to deep-seated landslides.14
(c) Subsidence
The site is located in an area identified by County of Riverside as having a potential for subsidence. However, according to the City of Corona General Plan, the area of the site exhibits no indications of significant regional subsidence. An area of documented subsidence is located in the Chino Valley, approximately 10 miles northwest of the site. Subsidence is not documented within the vicinity of the site. The potential for subsidence at the site is considered low.
(d) Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon that predominantly occurs in saturated, cohesionless soils during relatively severe earthquake ground motions. In general, during ground motion, saturated sands tend to compact and decrease in volume and if drainage is unable to occur, an increase in pore water pressure may result. If the pore water pressure becomes equivalent to the overburden pressure, the effective stress becomes zero and consequently, the soil loses its strength and is considered to be in a liquefied state. Post-liquefaction effects at a site can manifest in several ways and may include ground deformations, loss of shear strength, lateral spread, dynamic settlement and flow failure. Liquefaction potential is greatest in loose, poorly graded sands and silty sands with mean grain size in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 millimeters. Other factors that need to be considered are groundwater, confining stresses, relative density, intensity and duration of ground shaking.

It is generally accepted that soils possessing clay content (particle size <0.005 mm.) greater than 15 to 20 percent may be considered non-liquefiable (Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999 and Blake, 1986).

Liquefaction requires relatively shallow groundwater and owing that on-site groundwater is greater than several hundred feet in depth, the likelihood of liquefaction at the site is remote. The Silverado and Ladd Formations, as well as un-weathered Pleistocene alluvium that underlie the site, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. However, Holocene alluvium (Qal1-2), landslide debris (Qls), topsoil and undocumented fills (Af) are potentially liquefiable, if saturated. 15 Liquefaction Zones in the area and the City of Corona, are illustrated in Figure 4.E-4, Riverside County Liquefaction Zones. As shown in Figure 4.E-4, areas of “low” potential liquefaction are located in the Mabey Canyon and Kroonen Canyon areas of the site.

The remainder of the site is not identified as having any liquefaction potential. 14 Op. Cit, page 22. 15 Op. Cit., pages 35 and 36.

Project Site Rela ve to Recent Fault Inves ga ons FIGURE Skyline Heights Project 4.E-3
Source: Ginter & Associates, Inc., 2014. N
N.A.P.

Riverside County Liquefac on Zones FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.E-4
Source: Ginter & Associates, Inc., 2013. N
December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-13
(e) Dry Sand Settlement
Dry sand settlement is a result of earthquake-induced stresses creating strains within partially saturated soils. These strains cause a rearrangement of the soil structure, decreasing the void ratio of the soil, and ultimately creating settlement. The soils that typically are susceptible to dry sand settlement are loose, poorly graded sands and silty sands with mean grain size in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm. Generally, soils possessing clay content (particle size <0.005mm) greater than fifteen (15) to twenty (20) percent are typically not susceptible to dry sand settlement (Martin and Lew, 1999). Other factors that must be considered are confining stresses, relative density, intensity and duration of ground shaking, previous stress history and the age of the deposits. Based on a review of the data from prior subsurface investigation, the potential is considered remote, provided the proposed design and remedial grading are accomplished as outlined herein.
(5) Soils
(a) Expansive Soils
Based on the laboratory tests performed during site investigation, it is anticipated that the majority of onsite soils would classify as "very low" to "medium" in expansion potential according to Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBC. However, portions of the Silverado Formation could produce materials ranging from very high to critical in expansion potential.
(b) Compressible Soils
Unconsolidated sediments occupying active channels in the major canyons and low order swales are shown as Holocene alluvium (Q1-2 on the various geologic maps in the Geotechnical Report). These deposits vary in thickness from a few feet to more than 20 feet and are generally of low density and considered to be compressible. In addition, unmapped prisms of compressible soils likely lie at the base of onsite slopes, or occupy swales on those slopes. These accumulations stem from weathering, dislodgement and downslope transport (by either water or creep) of debris derived from local bedrock. Although colluvium (loose, unconsolidated sediment) was encountered in a few of exploratory trenches, the steep nature of most of the slopes and heavy vegetative growth prevented exploration of these soils. Colluvium is estimated to range from approximately five to 15 feet in depth.16 Non-engineered fill exists at the Kroonen Clay Prospect near the center of the project site. It is anticipated that artificial fill in this region locally reaches a depth ranging from five to 20 feet. Fault trenches created during the 2005 on-site geologic investigation are located primarily in areas of planned cut and were backfilled with non-engineered fill.17
16 Op. Cit., page 21. 17 Op. Cit., page 22.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-14
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
(a) Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
1997 U.S. Code, Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 86 – Earthquake Hazards Reduction, §§ 7704 – National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, (Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act), was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The program was significantly amended in November 1990 by NEHRP, which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives. NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigation and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, reports, and coordinating responsibilities.

Programs under NEHRP inform and guide planning and building code requirements such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards such as those to which the Project would be required to adhere.
(b) Federal Soil Protection Act
The purpose of the Federal Soil Protection Act, published within the Federal Law Gazette on March 17, 1998, is to protect or restore the functions of the soil on a permanent sustainable basis. Protection and restoration activities include prevention of harmful soil changes, rehabilitation of the soil of contaminated sites and of water contaminated by such sites, and precautions against negative soil impacts. If impacts are made on the soil, disruptions of its natural functions and of its function as an archive of natural and cultural history would be avoided, as far as practicable. In addition, the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provide guidance for protection of geologic and soil resources. (2) State
(a) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 2621-2624) was enacted in 1972 to address the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy.18 The primary purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to prevent the construction of buildings intended for human occupancy on the surface traces of active faults. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “earthquake fault zones”, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue maps to assist cities and counties in planning, zoning, and building regulation functions. Local agencies must enforce the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in the development permit process, where applicable, and may be more restrictive than State law requires. The Act requires that, prior to approval of a project, a geologic study be conducted to define and delineate any hazards from 18 The Act was originally entitled the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zone Act.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-15
surface rupture. A geologist registered by the State of California, within the lead agency’s organization or retained by the lead agency for the project, must prepare this geologic report. A 50-foot building setback from any known trace of an active fault is required. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and its regulations are presented in California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publications (SP) 42, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California. (b) Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 2690-2699) addresses the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other ground failures due to seismic events. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate “seismic hazard zones.” The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations and policies to assist municipalities in preparing the Safety Element of their General Plan and encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety. Under Public Resources Code section 2697, cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a Geotechnical Report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.

State publications supporting the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act include the California Geological Survey SP 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and SP 118, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California. The objectives of SP 117 are to assist in the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations and to promote uniform and effective statewide implementation of the evaluation and mitigation elements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. SP 118 implements the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act in the production of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for the State. (3) Local
The California Government Code section 65300 requires general plans to include “a safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires.” As such, the City’s Public Health and Safety Element (Chapter 6 of the General Plan) addresses hazards which must be considered in the physical development of the City, including seismic, geologic and erosion. An analysis of project consistency with the City’s Public Health and Safety Element regarding geology and soils issues is provided in the Analysis of Project Impacts subsection, below (see Threshold 6).

With regard to soils, the Infrastructure and Public Services Element contains goals and policies regarding the assessment of stormwater runoff and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. All development projects with the City must comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. Title 15 of the City of Corona Municipal Code requires that all development projects to obtain a grading permit. All work requiring a grading permit is required to have an approved Erosion Control Plan. Please also see Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR for a detailed discussion regarding groundwater and stormwater runoff.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-16

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The technical analyses supporting the impact conclusions in the following section are based on the analysis contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan prepared by Ginter and Associates, Inc., on April 25, 2014. The conclusions in the report were primarily derived from the following tasks:

Review of available geologic and geotechnical literature, reports, maps and agency information; Review of prior subsurface exploration consisting of trenching and borings; Collection of relatively undisturbed and bulk samples at selected depth intervals from the soil borings and transportation of the samples to a laboratory for testing; Laboratory testing of selected samples to evaluate engineering characteristics of the onsite earth materials within the exploration depths;
Geotechnical evaluation of collected test boring and relevant engineering analyses; and Geologic field reconnaissance mapping to verify the aerial distribution of earth units and significance of surficial features as compiled from documents, literature and reports reviewed; and Recommendations for foundation design, grading and earthwork, and pavement.

Please refer to Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, contained in Appendix F of this Draft EIR, for a detailed discussion of the subsurface exploration, soil sampling, and laboratory tests and procedures. Data and conclusions from the analyses in the report were used to determine potential impacts from the project related to site geology and soils parameters. These impacts were compared against the Thresholds of Significance set forth below to determine the level of significance of potential impacts. A detailed seismic hazard evaluation of the CBC Seismic Design Parameters and Peak Ground Acceleration Data was determined utilizing USGS Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters Version 5.1.0 (Revised 2/10/2011) (see the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix F of this Draft EIR). The geotechnical study also evaluated the hazards associated with earthquakes that include primary hazards such as ground- shaking and surface rupture, as well as secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic settlement and earthquake induced landsliding.
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 geology and soils 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:

Threshold 1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-17
substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42);
Strong seismic ground shaking;
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or Landslides.

Threshold 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Threshold 3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Threshold 4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.

Threshold 5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

Threshold 6: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils. c. Project Design Features
There are no specific Project Design Features (PDFs) that relate to geology and soils impacts. However, the proposed project would comply with all applicable building requirements related to geology and soil conditions. Recommendations from the Geotechnical Report would be incorporated into the project, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1 below. Also, with regard to impacts pertaining to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, the project would implement numerous BMPs as detailed in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project. The analysis below refers to Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR for a description of the BMPs proposed for the project. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Earthquake Fault Rupture, Ground Shaking, Ground Failure, and Landslides Threshold 1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides?

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-18
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 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.

Prior site-specific fault investigations of the Main Street, Tin Mine and associated faults concluded that active faults do not exist in proposed development areas. However, the age of last movement along a fault exposed in Trench T-12, in the northwest corner of the site is presently unknown owing to lack of dateable overlying sediments.19 As such, a provisional habitable structures setback zone for the fault until has been conservatively recommended until additional investigation may be undertaken. However, the Geotechnical Report considers this a conservative interpretation because the fault has no surface expression and its length is limited based on the un-faulted strata observed in the north-central part of the project site south of Mabey Canyon. Furthermore, prior investigators also concluded that the Alquist-Priolo trace of the Main Street Fault is clearly overlain by un-faulted upper Pleistocene sediments near Mabey Canyon and is, therefore, not active in the northwest part of the site south of Mabey Canyon, which precludes the need for habitable structures setbacks in that area.20 Nonetheless, in order to address uncertainties regarding the Main Street Fault, a minimum habitable structures setback of 50 feet on each side of the fault trace would be applied to Lots 230 through 234 of the project’s Tentative Tract Map until additional fault investigations can be undertaken to determine the activity of the fault. Refer to Figure 4.E-5, Fault Setback Zone, for an illustration of the fault setback zone and potentially affected residential lots. However, upon completion of the prescribed additional investigation, lots that are not capable of meeting recommended habitable structure setback would be deemed as non-buildable. With adherence to the design and remedial grading specific recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23, the potential for fault rupture affecting any on-site development would be less than significant.

The Geotechnical Report states, however, that the potential for strong, seismically-induced ground motion is substantial due to the proximity of major active faults. According to the Geotechnical Report, horizontal ground motion representing 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-year return period) is anticipated to be 0.6436.21 Design parameters for this potential level of groundshaking are provided in Appendix III of the Geotechnical Report. Because of steep natural slopes and, very locally, adverse bedding angles, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides exists. However, as discussed in the Geotechnical Report, with completion of remedial grading recommended in the report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 below, seismically induced landslides are not anticipated to adversely impact proposed development.22As further discussed in the Geotechnical Report, earthquake-induced stresses may result in dry sand settlement within partially saturated soils. These strains cause a rearrangement of the soil structure, decreasing the void ratio of the soil, and ultimately creating settlement. The soils that typically are susceptible to dry sand settlement are loose, poorly graded sands and silty sands with average grain size 19 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (2004 and 2005) cited in Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36. 20 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (2005) cited in Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36. 21 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 34, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Seismic Design Parameters. 22 Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36.

Fault Setback Zone FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.E-5
Source: KWC Engineers, 2015. N 0 120 Feet

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-20
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-21
ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 mm. Soils possessing clay content (particle size <0.005mm) greater than fifteen to twenty percent are typically not susceptible to dry sand settlement.23 Other factors include confining stresses, relative density, intensity and duration of ground shaking, previous stress history and the age of the deposits. However, based on a review of soils data from prior subsurface investigations, the potential for dry sand settlement is considered remote, provided the proposed design and remedial grading are accomplished as outlined in the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-15.24 With regard to liquefaction, limited portions of the site, including the Mabey Canyon and Kroonen Canyon areas, are located in “low” or “very low” liquefaction zones. Other areas of the site are not identified as having any liquefaction potential. According to the Geotechnical Report, perched groundwater was encountered during prior geological investigations at 39 feet below ground surface. No groundwater was encountered during the more recent fault investigations. The geotechnical also cited a prior report, which estimated the regional groundwater surface to be 100 to 200 feet below the existing ground surface.25 In addition, the Silverado and Ladd Formations, as well as unweathered Pleistocene alluvium underlying the site, are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. However, on-site Holocene alluvium (Qal1-2), landslide debris (Qls), topsoil and undocumented fills (Af) are potentially liquefiable, if saturated. According to the Geotechnical Report, the recommended removal and replacement of those materials within the proposed development with drained, engineered fills, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-5 and GEO-6, would reduce the susceptibility to liquefaction to a minimal level upon completion of grading.26 Based on these conditions, the potential for soil liquefaction and/or seismic settlement is considered to be very low.

Although groundwater was not encountered during prior subsurface investigation within the alluvium onsite, access was limited and certain alluvial areas within Krooner Canyon could not be investigated. If "saturated" alluvium is encountered that possesses a degree of saturation of 85 percent of more and is consistent with depth to bedrock, an additional liquefaction investigation may be required and dynamic settlement recommendations for those areas would likely change.

The project would be designed, engineered, and constructed to meet all applicable local and state seismic safety requirements and would incorporate recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23 below. Furthermore, the City would have review and approval authority over grading and building plans to ensure compliance with all applicable standards.

Given compliance with applicable requirements and recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the project would not result in significant impacts with regard to seismic or seismic-related hazards. (2) Soil Erosion
Threshold 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact 4.E-2 Project construction would require mass grading on the site and removal of fill, alluvium, and other loose materials. Best Management Practices would be implemented in accordance with an approved Erosion Control Plan. After construction, any non-paved, exposed areas would be 23 Martin and Lew (1999) cited in Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 35. 24 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014 , pages 35-36. 25 Weber (1977) cited in Ginter &Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 22. 26 Ginter & Associates, Inc., page 35.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-22
landscaped. Therefore, with compliance with applicable requirements, impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

The project would require mass grading and the removal of undocumented fill, alluvium, colluvium, and landslide debris at the site. Construction activities would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, the project would be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. More specifically, since the project would disturb more than one acre of land, the project would be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from the construction site. Furthermore, the project would comply with Title 15 of the City of Corona Municipal Code, which requires that an Erosion Control Plan be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.

After construction, exposed areas would be landscaped. The installation of landscaping would serve to protect the soil and reduce any erosion that could occur. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations during construction and operation, impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
(3) Ground Failure
Threshold 3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
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.

The project proposes cuts and fills to maximum design depths of approximately 130 feet (vicinity of Lot 123), excluding utility excavation, and 138 feet (vicinity of Lot 223), respectively. Cut slopes would range from small, two-foot-high side yard split slopes to 140 feet at 2:1 slope ratios. One 1.5:1 cut slope approximately 80 feet high is proposed. Fill slopes would range from small, less than two-foot-high side yard split slopes to 160 feet at 2:1 slope ratios. The majority of cut and fill slopes are designed at a slope ratio of 2:1. The Engineering Geologist would observe cut slopes and cut slope stabilization backcuts during grading.

Cut slopes within the Williams and Ladd Formations may expose adverse bedding that would require remediation. The cut slope superjacent to Lots 278 and 279 is anticipated to require replacement with a buttress fill and probable buttresses are anticipated for the cut slope above Lots 261 through 267 and below Lots 247 through 255. Within the Ladd Formation, the majority of the cut slopes would 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 and Silverado Formations 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 would be made based on exposed conditions during grading.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-23
Cut slopes within the Ladd and Silverado Formations may also expose conglomerate resulting in poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, producing a rough uneven surface. These cut slopes would be evaluated in the field by the Project Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Replacement of those slopes with compacted stabilization fills may be required. Cut slopes exposing alluvial/colluvial soils (Qal) would 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 would be two feet. All stabilization fills would be provided with a backdrain and outlet system as detailed in the Geotechnical Report.

The highest fill slope would be approximately 160 feet in height and located subjacent to Lot 68. Based on the slope stability analyses, the 2:1 fill slopes 160 feet and less in height, when properly constructed with onsite materials, are expected to be grossly stable. Keys would 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 20 feet, whichever is greater. Minimum key depths at the toe would be two feet. Due to grading limit restrictions, removals of unsuitable soils beyond the proposed toe may be limited; therefore, additional slope maintenance would be expected in the areas where a 1:1 projection into approved materials cannot be achieved.27 Where a transition of cut and fill occurs across a finished lot, it will be necessary to overexcavate the bedrock portions and replace it with compacted fill. The depth of bedrock overexcavation would be equal to one-third the maximum fill depth (after removals) on the fill side of the transition. The Geotechnical Report recommends that cut pads be overexcavated a minimum of five feet to provide a uniform foundation material, which is required by Mitigation Measure GEO-4. Difficult excavation with a backhoe can be expected in some street areas.

Because the project would involve deep fills in the canyon areas and side-hill fill slopes, the fill would be compacted to the minimum relative compaction recommended in the Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-6. This would reduce the amount of fill settlement to a less than significant level.

Fill materials would be spread in thin lifts, moisture conditioned to about one to two 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 would be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. Fill slopes would also be constructed at the minimum relative compactions, with the exception of the outer three feet of the slope face, which can be placed at 90 percent relative compaction.

Because the maximum depth of proposed canyon fill is approximately 138 vertical feet, the areal loading from fill placement would cause settlement due to the compressibility of the fill materials. The magnitude of settlements would depend on the thickness of fill and the compressibility characteristics of fill materials.

Considering the maximum fill depth and anticipated consolidation characteristics of the fill materials, the compacted fill may approximately six to eight-inches. Due to the granular nature of the site soils, the majority of this settlement would occur during grading operations and long-term secondary settlement would be negligible. The Geotechnical Report proposes positioning settlement monuments at strategic locations in the deeper fill areas and recommends periodic surveys by the Project Civil Engineer to evaluate the magnitude and progress of settlements. These would be monitored by the Project Civil Engineer on a 27 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 46.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-24
regular basis until the primary settlement has stabilized and before those areas are released for construction.

As recommended in the Geotechnical Report, and required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the site’s loose, compressible residual soil, non-engineered onsite fill, colluvium, alluvium, landslide debris, older alluvium and weathered bedrock would be removed from fill areas prior to placement of fill and from shallow cut areas, where exposed at finish grades. Fills associated with "recreational" grading, construction of unpaved access roads, mining operations and existing trench backfill would be removed prior to fill placement. Other fills, including roadway fills and trench backfill, are not mapped due to their localized extent and minor thickness. Removals would extend below the undocumented fill until competent materials are encountered.

The Geotechnical Report recommends that all alluvial and colluvial soils below proposed fill areas and in cut areas shall be removed to expose competent bedrock or terrace deposits. All alluvium deposits exposed at existing or cut grades would be entirely removed prior to fill placement. Anticipated average removal depths for alluvium/colluvium areas are expected to vary to an estimated maximum thickness of 35 feet. All landslide debris that could adversely affect the proposed development would be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock.28 The seismic refraction survey revealed that excavation difficulty is expected to increase with depth and, in order to attain design grades, very heavy ripping would be anticipated in the Silverado and Ladd formations underlying the site. Therefore, it is likely that excavating during grading would also encounter ledges and zones of extremely hard rock that may require blasting.

Guidelines to determine the depth of removals are provided in the Geotechnical Report; however, the exact extent of the removals would 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.29 The minimum backcut ratio would be 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). The bottoms of all removal areas would 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.30 With the incorporation of recommendations of the Geotechnical Report regarding temporary shoring and temporary excavations, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-2, the project site is considered suitable for the proposed excavation and fill activities and impacts related to the stability of cut and fill slope would be less than significant.

Ascending and descending natural slopes exist within the site that range in height up to approximately 200 feet with slope ratios from 2:1 to locally 1.2:1. Stability analyses of the highest ascending slope of 160 feet above Lot 4 indicates a factor-of-safety in excess of the code minimums (described in Appendix II of the 28 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 43. 29 Slope stability analyses were performed for the proposed highest cut slope (Section 1-1’), highest fill slope (Section 2-2’), buttressed slope (Section 3-3’), highest ascending natural slope (Section 4-4’), highest descending natural slope (Section 5-5’). Temporary backcut conditions for buttressed slopes as shown on Section 3-3’ was also analyzed. Shear strength parameters established and used in 2006 analyses by previous consultant Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. were utilized. The slopes were analyzed by calculating the factors of safety for circular-type failures using the Modified Bishop’s Method and block-type failure surfaces using Modified Janbu Method. GSTABL7 was utilized to evaluate slope stability factors of safety under static and pseudo-static conditions. For pseudo- static analyses, a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.15g was utilized for the critical failure surfaces on each cross-section. 30 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 41.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-25
Geotechnical Report). Therefore, no geologic hazards associated with natural slopes on the project site would occur as a result of project implementation.
(4) Expansive Soils
Threshold 4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
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.

Expansive soils are characterized by the ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink and swell) as a result of variation in soil moisture content.

Based on the laboratory tests performed during the investigation of the site by PSE, it is anticipated that the majority of onsite soils would classify as "very low" to "medium" in expansion potential according to Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBC31. However, portions of the Silverado Formation could produce materials ranging from very high to critical in expansion potential. If warranted, over excavation to depth and replacement with compacted fill, as recommended in the Geotechnical Report and required by Mitigation Measure GEO-4, would reduce the effects of any highly expansive soils encountered at grade.32 The compacted engineered fill at the project site is anticipated to be low to medium soil expansion potential.

Preliminary geotechnical criteria for design of building foundations, including conventional footing and post- tensioned foundation options, according to medium soil expansion are presented in the Geotechnical Report.33 With adherence to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report for foundation design, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-10, impacts related to risks to life or property resulting from expansive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. (5) Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Threshold 5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 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. 31 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 38. 32 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 47. 33 Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, pages 51 and 52.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-26
The project site would be served by the City’s wastewater system. Thus, no septic systems or alternative wastewater systems would be installed. Therefore, no significant impact with regard to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. Please see Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR for a detailed analysis regarding wastewater. (6) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold 6: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils? 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.

Table 4.E-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the project relative to applicable goals and policies in the Environmental Hazards and Public Safety Element of the General Plan. As shown in Table

4.E-1, the project would be consistent with the policies and would not conflict with portions of the policies that are directed at the City. The proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local building standards with regard to seismic and geologic hazard safety standards. The project would not be located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. As indicated in the Geotechnical Report, no known active or potentially active faults exist within the project site. However, because the age of last movement along a fault exposed in Trench T-12, in the northwest corner of the site is presently unknown due to lack of dateable overlying sediments, a provisional habitable structures setback zone for the fault has been recommended until additional investigation may be undertaken. The Geotechnical Report considers this a conservative interpretation because the fault has no surface expression and its length is limited based on the un-faulted strata observed in the north-central part of the site south of Mabey Canyon. Prior investigators also concluded that the Alquist-Priolo trace of the Main Street Fault is clearly overlain by un-faulted upper Pleistocene sediments near Mabey Canyon and is thus, not active in the northwest part of the site south of Mabey Canyon, which precludes the need for habitable structures setbacks in that area.34 In addition, the project would incorporate the recommendations in the site-specific Geotechnical Report, as required by Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating physical impacts associated with geology and soils and impacts would be less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For geology and soils, the study area considered for the cumulative impact includes (1) the area that could be affected by proposed project and (2) the areas affected by other projects whose activities could directly or indirectly affect the geology and soils of the project site. Geologic and soil impacts are generally site-specific and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between development projects. Adherence to all relevant 34 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (2005) cited in Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-27
Table 4.E-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Environmental Hazards and Public Safety – Seismic, Geologic, and Erosion Hazards Goal 11.1 – Substantially reduce the
known level of risk to loss of life, personal
injury, public and private property
damage, economic and social dislocation,
and disruption of vital community
services that would result from
earthquake damage or other geologic
disturbance.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local building standards. A geotechnical/soils report prepared for the proposed project would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, along with other approvals for the project. The project would comply with all recommendations stated therein to reduce substantially the risk of loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, or disruption of vital community services that would result from earthquake damage or other geologic disturbances. . Policy 11.1.1 – Require new development and re-development to be
undertaken in a manner that is in
compliance with current seismic and
geologic hazard safety standards, as
follows:

Regulate land uses in areas known to
have, or have potential to have,
significant seismic and/or other
geologic hazards.

Require detailed scientific analyses of
natural hazards to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer as a condition of
development approval within the City
of Corona.

Consistent. As indicated above, the proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local building standards with regard to seismic and geologic hazard safety standards. The project would not be located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and, as indicated in the Geotechnical Report, no known active or potentially active faults exist within the project site. However, because the age of last movement along a fault exposed in Trench T-12, in the northwest corner of the site is presently unknown due to lack of dateable overlying sediments, a provisional habitable structures setback zone for the fault until has been recommended until additional investigation may be undertaken. The Geotechnical Report considers this a conservative interpretation because the fault has no surface expression and its length is limited based on the unfaulted strata observed in the north-central part of the site south of Mabey Canyon. Prior investigators also concluded that the Alquist-Priolo trace of the Main Street Fault is clearly overlain by un-faulted upper Pleistocene sediments near Mabey Canyon and is thus, not active in the northwest part of the site south of Mabey Canyon, which precludes the need for habitable structures setbacks in that area.35 In addition, the project would incorporate the recommendations in the site-specific Geotechnical Report.

Therefore, 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. Source: City of Corona General Plan, ICF International, and PCR Services Corporation. 35 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (2005) cited in Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36. plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would reduce project-specific and cumulative geologic impacts to a less-than significant level. Therefore, since geologic hazards are site- specific, the project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not create a potentially significant cumulative impact on geological resources.

Impacts from erosion and loss of topsoil from site development and operation can be cumulative in effect within a watershed. The Santa Ana Watershed, which encompasses the City of Corona and the sphere of

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-28
influence, forms the geographic context of cumulative erosion impacts. Development throughout the watershed would be subject to State and local runoff and erosion prevention requirements, including the applicable provisions of the general construction permit, BMPs, and Phases I and II of NPDES, as well as implementation of fugitive dust control measures of SCAQMD Rule 403. These measures would be implemented as conditions of approval of project development and subject to continuing enforcement. As a result, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts on the Santa Ana Watershed due to runoff and erosion from cumulative development activity would be less than significant.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
In order to ensure that impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity are reduced to less than significant, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Site Preparation and Removals. All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Project Geotechnical Report, contained in Appendix F of this Draft EIR), the current codes practiced by the City of Corona and the Earthwork Specifications contained in Appendix IV of the Project Geotechnical Report. Loose, compressible residual soil, non-engineered onsite fill, colluvium, alluvium, landslide debris, older alluvium and weathered bedrock shall be removed from fill areas prior to placement of fill and shall be removed from shallow cut areas, where exposed at finish grades. Guidelines to determine the depth of removals are presented below; however, the exact extent of the removals must be determined in the field during grading, when observation and evaluation of the greater detail afforded by those exposures can be performed by the Geotechnical engineer and/or Engineering Geologist.

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

Groundwater, if encountered during grading, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist. In general, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect grading although saturated soils and free water may be encountered along canyons and within alluvium removals. If groundwater is excessive, remedial measures such as horizontal drains or under drains may need to be installed. Further, settlement monuments and plates (see Plate VI of the Geotechnical Report) shall be installed during and after completion of grading to monitor settlement monuments and plates shall be used to determine when the majority of the primary settlement has been completed to allow for the release of affected lots for construction.

Stripping: Vegetation, debris and other deleterious materials are unsuitable as structural fill material and shall be disposed of offsite prior to commencing removals and placement of compacted fills. The thick, natural vegetative growth onsite is significant and will require consideration for removal. An onsite mulching operation December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-29
may be considered. The mulched materials could then be used in future landscape areas.

Soil and Weathered Bedrock (unmapped): Loose, compressible onsite soils and underlying weathered bedrock shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock materials prior to placement of compacted fill and when exposed in shallow cut area. An average removal depth of 5 feet is anticipated for removal of topsoil and weathered bedrock. In general, onsite soils and weathered bedrock are suitable to be re-used as structural fill when properly moisture-conditioned.

Undocumented Artificial Fill (locally mapped as AFu): Fills associated with "recreational" grading, construction of unpaved access roads, mining operations and existing trench backfill shall be removed prior to fill placement. Generally, these artificial fills range from a depth of 3 to 20 feet. Local areas of undocumented fill associated with previous geotechnical investigations are not plotted on the map.

Other fills, including roadway fills and trench backfill, are not mapped due to their localized extent and minor thickness. Removals shall extend below the undocumented fill until competent materials are encountered.

Alluvium/Colluvium (map symbol Qal): All alluvium deposits exposed at existing or cut grades shall be entirely removed prior to fill placement. These deposits range in thickness from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet. Ginter and Associates recommends that all alluvial and colluvial soils below proposed fill areas and in cut areas be removed to expose competent bedrock or terrace deposits. Anticipated average removal depths for alluvium/colluvium areas are expected to vary to an estimated maximum thickness of 35 feet.

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

Older Alluvium (Qoa): All older alluvium shall be removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock. Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to about 20 feet.

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

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-30
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 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 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 December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-31
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.

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 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

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-32
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 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.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-33
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.

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-9: Deep Fill Settlement Monitoring. In deep fill areas, settlement monuments shall be installed and periodically surveyed by the project civil engineer to evaluate the magnitude and progress of settlements. Ginter & associates proposes positioning settlement monuments at strategic locations in the deeper fill areas as shown on figure vi of the geotechnical report. These shall be monitored on a regular basis until the primary settlement has stabilized before those areas released for construction.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-34
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 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 = 0.47inches
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 settlement potential provided below.

December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-35
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. Forming of footing excavations may be required. Excavations shall be free of slough and debris and thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. (v) Excavated material from footing and utility trenches shall not be placed in slab-ongrade areas unless properly compacted and tested.

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-

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-36
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.

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 December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-37
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 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.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-38
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.

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 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 December 2015 4.E. Geology and Soils
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-39
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.

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. 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.

4.E. Geology and Soils December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.E-40
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.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With compliance with applicable requirements regarding geology and soils, impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant.

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
F. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR addresses the project’s potential effect on global climate change (GCC) due to generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Relevant regulations and existing conditions are described as well as the potential for the project to result in GCC-related impacts due to generation of GHG emissions that would exceed applicable thresholds of significance, either directly or indirectly, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the GHG emissions. Data used to prepare this section was obtained from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project (herein referred to as the 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
The main contribution of GHG emissions in California between the years 2000 through 2009 was the transportation sector. The second highest sector was industrial, which includes sources from refineries, general fuel use, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and cogeneration heat output. California GHG emissions in 2009 totaled approximately 453 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).1
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following:2 A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower.

Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 1 GHG emissions other than carbon dioxide are commonly converted into carbon dioxide equivalents, which take into account the differing global warming potential (GWP) of different gases. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that nitrous oxide has a GWP of 310 and methane has a GWP of 21. Thus, the emission of 1 ton of nitrous oxide and 1 ton of methane is represented as the emission of 310 tons of CO2e and 21 tons of CO2e, respectively. This allows for the summation of different GHG emissions into a single total. 2
California Climate Change Center. 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center, CEC-500-2006-077, July 2006, http://www.scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/climate_change/ assessing_risks.pdf. Accessed May 2012.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-2
90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.

Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk.

Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.

A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.

An increase temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.

A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species.

These changes in California’s climate and ecosystems are occurring at a time when California’s population is expected to increase from 34 million to 59 million (by 2040).3 As such, the number of people potentially affected by climate change, as well as the amount of anthropogenic GHG emissions expected under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario, is expected to increase. Changes similar to those noted above for California would also occur in other parts of the world, with regional variations in the resources affected and vulnerability to adverse effects. GHG emissions in California are attributable to human activities, such as those associated with industry/manufacturing, utilities, transportation, and the residential and agricultural sectors, as well as natural processes.4
b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy to address GHGs. The federal government administers a wide array of public-private partnerships to reduce the GHG intensity generated in the United States. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane and other non-CO2 gases, agricultural practices, and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. The USEPA implements numerous voluntary programs that contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions. These programs (e.g., the Energy Star labeling system for energy-efficient products) play a 3 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, (2006). Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF. 4 Ibid.

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-3
significant role in encouraging voluntary reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings, and many major industrial sectors.

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), the United States Supreme Court held in April of 2007 that the USEPA has statutory authority under the federal Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs.

The Court did not hold that the USEPA was required to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

On May 19, 2009, the President announced a national policy for fuel efficiency and emissions standards in the United States auto industry. The adopted federal standard applies to passenger cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 through 2016. The rule surpasses the prior Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and requires an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and 250 grams of CO2 per mile by model year 2016, based on USEPA calculation methods. These standards were formally adopted on April 1, 2010. In August 2012, standards were adopted for model year 2017 through 2025 passenger cars and light-duty trucks. By 2025, vehicles are required to achieve 54.5 mpg (if GHG reductions are achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements) and 163 grams of CO2 per mile. According to the USEPA, a model year 2025 vehicle would emit one-half of the GHG emissions from a model year 2010 vehicle.5 On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA adopted a Final Endangerment Finding for the six defined GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) on December 7, 2009. The Endangerment Finding is required before USEPA can regulate GHG emissions under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act consistently with the United States Supreme Court decision. The USEPA also adopted a Cause or Contribute Finding in which the USEPA Administrator found that GHG emissions from new motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines are contributing to air pollution, which is endangering public health and welfare. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, these actions were a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles.

On July 20, 2011, the USEPA published its final rule deferring GHG permitting requirements for carbon dioxide emission from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources until July 21, 2014. In September 2011, the USEPA released an “Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources,” which analyzes accounting methodologies and suggests an implementation for biogenic carbon dioxide emitted from stationary sources. Environmental groups successfully challenged the permitting deferral in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (DC Cir. 2013). The court did not rule on whether the USEPA has authority under the federal Clean Air Act to permanently exempt biogenic carbon dioxide sources from permitting.

On April 13, 2012, the USEPA published a proposed rule to establish, for the first time, a new source performance standard for GHG emissions. Under the proposed rule, new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units larger than 25 MW would be required to limit emissions to 1,000 pounds CO2 per megawatt-hour 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks,” http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf. 2012.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-4
(MWh) on an average annual basis, subject to certain exceptions. On January 8, 2014, the USEPA withdrew that proposed rule6 and replaced it with a new proposed rule that shares much in common with the previous proposal.7 However, there also are a number of differences, including the universe of sources covered by the rule, the emissions standards for subcategories of sources, a determination of the best system of emission reduction for coal-fired electric generating units, and a new alternative compliance option, among others.

On April 17, 2012, the USEPA issued emission rules for oil production and natural gas production and processing operations.
(2) State
With the passage of several pieces of legislation, including state senate and assembly bills and executive orders, California launched an innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level.
(a) Assembly Bill 1493
In response to the transportation sector accounting for a large portion of California’s CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is non-commercial personal transportation manufactured in and after 2009. In setting these standards, CARB must consider cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, economic impacts, and provide maximum flexibility to manufacturers.

The State of California in 2004 submitted a request for a waiver from federal clean air regulations, which ordinarily preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emission standards, to allow the state to require reduced tailpipe emissions of CO2. In late 2007, the USEPA denied California’s waiver request. In early 2008, the state brought suit against USEPA related to this denial. In January 2009, the President directed the USEPA to assess whether its denial of the waiver was appropriate under the federal Clean Air Act. In June 2009, the USEPA granted California the waiver.

However, as discussed previously, the USEPA have adopted federal standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles. In light of the USEPA standards, California - and states adopting California emissions standards - have agreed to defer to the proposed national standard through model year 2016. The 2016 endpoint of the federal and state standards is similar, although the federal standard ramps up slightly more slowly than required under the state standard. The state standards (called the Pavley standards) require additional reductions in CO2 emissions beyond model year 2016 (referred to as Pavley Phase II standards). As noted above, the USEPA have adopted GHG emission standards for model year 2017 through 2025 vehicles. These standards are slightly different from the Pavley Phase II standards, but the State of California has agreed not to contest these standards, in part due to the fact that while the national standard would achieve slightly less reductions in California, it would achieve greater reductions nationally and is 6 79 Fed. Reg. 1352 (Jan. 8, 2014). 7
79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (Jan. 8, 2014).

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-5
stringent enough to meet state GHG emission reduction goals.8 On November 15, 2012, CARB approved an amendment that allows manufacturers to comply with the 2017-2025 national standards to meet state law. (b) Executive Order S-3-05
The goal of this executive order is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by 2020, and 3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of AB 32.
(c) Assembly Bill 32
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals outlined in Executive Order S-3-05 while further mandating that CARB create a plan that includes market mechanisms and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’s Climate Action Team.

The CARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (California Air Resources Board 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a BAU scenario were estimated in 2008 to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (California Air Resources Board 2008c). However, CARB updated the year 2020 business as usual (BAU) scenario in 2012 based on new and revised data. The updated forecast accounts for the effects of the recent economic recession, as well as new estimates for future fuel and energy demand, as well as other factors. The 2020 BAU forecast taking into account the effects of the recent economic recession is 545 MMTCO2e. Therefore, a 21.7 percent reduction from the year 2020 BAU forecast is required to achieve AB 32 reduction goal for year 2020.
(d) Executive Order S-01-07
Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (issued on January 18, 2007), requires a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020. Regulatory proceedings and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard have been directed to CARB. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard has been identified by CARB as a discrete early action item in the adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan. CARB expects the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to achieve the minimum 10-percent reduction goal; however, many of the early action items outlined in the Climate Change Scoping Plan work in tandem with one another. To avoid the potential for double-counting emission reductions associated with AB 1493 (see previous discussion), the Climate Change Scoping Plan has modified the aggregate reduction expected from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 9.1 percent. CARB released a draft version of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in October 2008. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on January 12, 2010; the Low Carbon Fuel Standard became effective on the same day.
8 California Air Resources Board, “Advanced Clean Cars Summary,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/clean_cars/acc%20summaryfinal.pdf. Accessed April 2014.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-6
(e) Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97 required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
(f) Renewable Energy Standard/Renewable Portfolio Standard (2002/2006/2011) SB 1078 (2002) and SB 107 (2006) created the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) program, which required electric companies to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1 percent of their retail sales annually, until reaching 20 percent by 2010. SB 2X 1 (2011) required a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS, functionally the same thing as the RES) of 33 percent by 2020. (3) Regional
After AB 32 was passed, the SCAQMD formed a Climate Change Committee along with a Greenhouse Gases CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group and the SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange Technical Advisory Group. On September 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Board approved the SCAQMD Climate Change Policy, which outlines actions the SCAQMD will take to assist businesses and local governments in implementing climate change measures, decrease the agency’s carbon emissions, and provide information to the public regarding climate change. On December 5, 2008, the Board approved interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds for stationary source projects where it is the lead agency. The threshold is a tiered approach to determine a project’s significance, with 10,000 metric tons of CO2e as a screening numerical threshold for stationary source projects. In order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group drafted thresholds with the intent of capturing 90 percent of development projects.9 Under Tiers 1 and 2, projects that are exempt from CEQA or consistent with an approved local GHG reduction plan can be found to be less than significant. Under Tier 3, a project’s GHG emissions are compared to the draft screening thresholds. At present, the SCAQMD has not formally adopted thresholds for use by other lead agencies, but recommends that industrial projects utilize the 10,000 MTCO2e screening level that has been adopted for SCAQMD projects. The GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group has drafted a significance indicator of 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use or all land use projects, but it has not been formally adopted. Under Tier 4, a project’s GHG emissions are compared to a performance standard, such as achieving a percentage reduction in GHG emissions from a base case scenario (i.e., BAU scenario) or achieving a project-level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population.
(4) Local
The City of Corona General Plan includes policies related to GHG emissions. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal 1.5 – Distinct neighborhoods and districts that contribute to the identity, character, and image of Corona as a vital, livable, diverse, innovative, and environmentally sustainable community. 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Meeting, December 5, 2008, Agenda No. 31, Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal – Key Issues/Comments Attachment D.

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-7
Policy 1.5.14 – Require that developers demonstrate water conservation in the landscape design of their proposed projects, such as the use of drought tolerant species.

Policy 1.5.17 – Require that new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development be designed to minimize consumption of and sustain scarce environmental resources through such methods as the following, as applicable to the type and scale of development:

Site design—concentration and intermixing of development to minimize vehicular trips and promote walking, building orientation in consideration of solar access and heat gain and loss, and other. Landscaping—drought-tolerant species, use of recycled water for irrigation, and other purposes. Capture of rainwater and re-use on site. Building design and construction materials—energy-and water efficient fixtures, recycled building materials, insulation and wall thickness, permeable paving surfaces, and comparable techniques. Goal 10.2 – Ensure sustainable use of finite energy and water resources for the long-term use of residents and visitors of Corona. Policy 10.2.5 – Require the use of reclaimed water in common areas and landscape treatments for all proposed developments.

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.

The City of Corona adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2012. The purpose of the CAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine the significance of the emissions during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Corona.10 To address the state’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the City of Corona prepared its CAP with the goal of reducing GHG emissions within the City by 15 percent below existing (2008) levels by 2020. The City's target is consistent with the AB 32 target and ensures that Corona will be providing GHG reductions locally that will complement state and international efforts to stabilize climate change. Because the City's CAP addresses GHG emissions reductions, is in concert with AB 32 and international efforts to address GCC, and includes specific local requirements that will substantially lessen the cumulative problem, compliance with the plan fulfills the description of mitigation found in the State CEQA Guidelines. 10 City of Corona, Climate Action Plan, (2012).

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-8
According to SCAQMD’s interim guidance document for addressing GHG emissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important component of GHGs because it constitutes the majority of total GHG emissions and is very long lasting in the atmosphere. For this reason, estimated CO2 emissions are used as the benchmark for analysis.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The evaluation of potential impacts related to the emission of GHGs is based on the comparison of the project to the thresholds stated below and applicable regulatory requirements. The analysis is based on the information contained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, dated May 2014, which is included as Appendix C of this Draft EIR. Mass daily GHG emissions from construction and operation of the project were estimated using the CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2) emissions model, an emissions estimation/evaluation model developed in collaboration with air quality management districts of California. For construction activities, the CalEEMod model separates the construction process into multiple phases to account for various construction scenarios, including structure demolition, site clearing, and asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings.

Assumptions regarding construction phasing and equipment use were based on information received from the project Applicant and the construction contractor. A complete list of the construction equipment by phase, construction phase duration assumptions, and changes to modeling default values used in this analysis is included in the CalEEMod printout sheets, which are provided in Attachment A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, dated May 2014 (refer to Appendix C of this Draft EIR). With regards to operational GHG emissions, the CalEEMod model was used to calculate GHG emissions from mobile and area sources, such as on-site consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, etc., that would occur during long-term project operations. In calculating mobile- source emissions, the CalEEMod default trip assumptions and trip generation rates from the traffic report (refer to Appendix C in this EIR) were applied to arrive at the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with operational project elements.
b. Thresholds of Significance
(1) CEQA Appendix G (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides thresholds of significance to determine whether a project would have a significant environmental impact regarding GHG emissions. The Appendix G thresholds identified below are included for evaluation in this Draft EIR.

Would the Project:

Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement 4.F-1); or
Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG (refer to Impact Statement 4.F-2).

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-9
(2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of Corona allows project to utilize either the SCAQMD’s draft thresholds or the City’s adopted Greenhouse Gasses Thresholds Points Worksheet. The City of Corona comments on the project, dated December 19, 2012, Community Development Department comment 1PL-006 (2) demonstrates that the use of the SCAQMD’s draft threshold is considered equivalent to the use of the City’s Greenhouse Gasses Thresholds Points Worksheet. To determine whether the project is significant, this project uses the SCAQMD draft local agency tiered threshold. The threshold is as follows:

Tier 1: The project is not exempt under CEQA; go to Tier 2.

Tier 2: There is no GHG reduction plan applicable to the project; go to Tier 3.

Tier 3: Project GHG emissions compared with the threshold: 3,500 MTCO2e per year.

Tier 4, option 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from BAU consistent with AB 32 (e.g., by 21.7 percent). The California 2020 emissions target is 427 MMTCO2e and the 2020 baseline (without any AB 32 related regulations) is 545 MMTCO2e (CARB’s projected statewide 2020 GHG emissions taking into account the economic recession). Therefore, a 21.7 percent reduction is required to reduce emissions to the target level.

Tier 4, option 2: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year.
c. Project Design Features
The project would implement project design features that would reduce the potential for GHG 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.

The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code includes the following mandatory requirements for residential developments:

Division 4.1 - Planning and Design (Site Development)

4.106.2 Storm Water Drainage and Retention During Construction

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-10
Projects which disturb less than one acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development shall manage storm water drainage during construction.

4.106.3 Grading and Paving
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings, with the exception of additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.

Division 4.2 - Energy Efficiency

4.201.1 Scope
Standards for residential buildings do not require compliance with levels of minimum energy efficiency beyond those required by the 2013 California Energy Code.

Division 4.3 - Water Efficiency and Conservation (Indoor Water Use)

4.303.1 Water Conserving Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings Plumbing fixtures and fittings shall comply with the following:

4.303.1.3.2 Multiple Showerheads: combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower be in operation at a time

4.303
60 psi
default to 1.8 gpm

4.303.2 Standards for Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings
Plumbing fixtures and fittings shall be installed in accordance with the California Plumbing Code.

Division 4.3 - Water Efficiency and Conservation (Outdoor Water Use) December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-11

4.304.1 Irrigation Controllers
Automatic irrigation system controllers for landscaping provided by the builder and installed at the time of final inspection shall comply with the following:
1 - Controllers shall be weather- or soil moisture-based controllers that automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in plant watering needs as weather or soil conditions change. 2 - Weather-based controllers without integral rain sensors or communication systems that account for rainfall shall have a separate wired or wireless rain sensor which connects or communicates with the controller(s).

Division 4.4 - Material Conservation & Resource Efficiency (Enhanced Durability & Reduced Maintenance)

4.406.1 Rodent Proofing
Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits, or other openings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls shall be closed with cement mortar, concrete masonry or a similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency to prevent passage of rodents.

Division 4.4 - Material Conservation & Resource Efficiency (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal & Recycling)

4.408.1 Construction Waste Reduction of at least 50%
Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3 or 4.408.4; OR meet a more stringent local construction and demolition waste management ordinance. Documentation is required per Section 4.408.5.

Exceptions:
1 - Excavated soil and land-clearing debris.
2 - Alternate waste reduction methods developed by working with local enforcing agencies if diversion or recycle facilities capable of compliance with this item do not exist or are not located reasonably close to the jobsite.
3 - The enforcing agency may make exceptions to the requirements of this section when isolated jobsites are located in areas beyond the haul boundaries of the diversion facility.

4.408.2 Construction Waste Management Plan
Submit a construction waste management plan meeting Items 1 through 5 in Section 4.408.2. Plans shall be updated as necessary and shall be available for examination during construction.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-12

4.408.3 Waste Management Company
Utilize a waste management company, approved by the enforcing agency, which can provide verifiable documentation that diverted construction and demolition waste materials meet the requirements in Section

4.408.1.

4.408.4 Waste Stream Reduction Alternative
Generate a total combined weight of construction and demolition waste disposed in landfills that is equal to or less than 4 pounds per square-foot of the building area.

Division 4.4 - Material Conservation & Resource Efficiency (Building Maintenance & Operation)

4.410.1 Operation and Maintenance Manual
At the time of final inspection, a manual, compact disc, web-based reference or other media acceptable to the enforcing agency which covers 10 specific subject areas shall be placed in the building.

Division 4.5 - Environmental Quality (Fireplaces)

4.503.1 General
Any installed gas fireplace shall be a direct-vent sealed-combustion type. Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall comply with U.S. EPA Phase II emission limits where applicable. Woodstoves, pellet stoves and fireplaces shall also comply with all applicable local ordinances.

Division 4.5 - Environmental Quality (Pollutant Control)

4.504.1 Covering of Duct Openings and Protection of Mechanical Equipment During Construction At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site and until final startup of the heating, cooling and ventilating equipment, all duct and other related air intake and distribution component openings shall be covered. Tape, plastic, sheet metal or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust and debris entering the system may be used.

4.504.2.1 Adhesives, Sealants and Caulks
Adhesives, sealants and caulks used on the project shall meet the requirements of the following standards unless more stringent local or regional air pollution or air quality management district rules apply:
1 - Adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers, sealants, sealant primers, and caulks shall comply with local or regional air pollution control or air quality management district rules where applicable, or SCAQMD Rule 1168 VOC limits, as shown in Tables 4.504.1 or 4.504.2, as applicable.

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-13
Such products shall also comply with Rule 1168 prohibition on the use of certain toxic compounds (chloroform, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene), except for aerosol products as specified in Subsection 2 below. 2 - Aerosol adhesives, and smaller unit sizes of adhesives, and sealant or caulking compounds (in units of product, less packaging, which do not weigh more than 1 pound and do not consist of more than 16 fluid ounces) shall comply with statewide VOC standards and other requirements, including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds, of the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, commencing with Section 94507.

4.504.2.2 Paints and Coatings
Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the Air Resources Board Architectural Suggested Control Measure, as shown in Table 4.504.3, unless more stringent local limits apply.

The VOC content limit for coatings that do not meet the definitions for the specialty coatings categories listed in Table 4.504.3 shall be determined by classifying the coating as Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat-High Gloss coating, based on its gloss, as defined in subsections 4.21, 4.36, and 4.37, of the 2007 California Air Resources Board, Suggested Control Measure, and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat-High Gloss VOC limit in Table

4.504.3 shall apply.

4.504.2.3 Aerosol Paints and Coatings
Aerosol paints and coatings shall meet the Product-Weighted MIR Limits for ROC in Section 94522(a)(3) and other requirements, including prohibitions on use of certain toxic compounds and ozone depleting substances, in Section 94522(c)(2) and (d)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, commencing with Section 94520; and in areas under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall additionally comply with the percent VOC by weight of product limits of Regulation 8, Rule 49.

4.504.3 Carpet Systems
All carpet installed in the building interior shall meet the testing and product requirements of one of the following:
1 - Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Plus Program 2 - California Department of Public Health, "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," Version 1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification 01350.)
3 - NSF/ANSI 140 at the Gold level
4 - Scientific Certifications Systems Indoor Advantage™ Gold

4.504.3.1 Carpet Cushion

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-14
All carpet cushion installed in the building interior shall meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Program.

4.504.3.2 Carpet Adhesive
All carpet adhesives shall meet the requirements of Table 4.504.1.

4.504.4 Resilient Flooring Systems
Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall comply with one or more of the following:
1 - VOC emission limits defined in the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) High Performance Products Database.
2 - Products compliant with CHPS criteria certified under the Greenguard Children & Schools program. 3 - Certification under the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) FloorScore program. 4 - Meet the California Department of Public Health, “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” Version

1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification 01350.)

4.504.5 Composite Wood Products
Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the interior or exterior of the building shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in the Air Resources Board's Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 CCR 93120 et. seq.), on or before the dates specified in those sections as shown in Table 4.504.5. Documentation is required per Section 4.504.5.1.

Definition of Composite Wood Products: Composite wood products include hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. "Composite wood products" do not include hardboard, structural plywood, structural panels, structural composite lumber, oriented strand board, glued laminated timber, prefabricated wood I-joists, or finger-jointed lumber, all as specified in CCR, Title 17, Section 93120.1(a).

Division 4.5 - Environmental Quality (Interior Moisture Control)

4.505.2 Concrete Slab Foundations
Concrete slab foundations or concrete slab-on-ground floors required to have a vapor retarder by the California Building Code, Chapter 19, or the California Residential Code, Chapter 5, respectively, shall also comply with this section.

4.505.2.1 Capillary Break
December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-15
A capillary break shall be installed in compliance with at least one of the following: 1 - A 4-inch (101.6 mm) thick base of 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) or larger clean aggregate shall be provided with a vapor retarder in direct contact with concrete and a concrete mix design which will address bleeding, shrinkage and curling shall be used. For additional information, see American Concrete Institute, ACI 302.2R-06. 2 - Other equivalent methods approved by the enforcing agency. 3 - A slab design specified by a licensed design professional.

4.505.3 Moisture Content of Building Materials
Building materials with visible signs of water damage shall not be installed. Wall and floor framing shall not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. Moisture content shall be verified in compliance with the following: 1 - Moisture content shall be determined with either a probe-type or a contact-type moisture meter. Equivalent moisture verification methods may be approved by the enforcing agency and shall satisfy requirements in Section 101.8. 2 - Moisture readings shall be taken at a point 2 feet (610 mm) to 4 feet (1219 mm) from the grade-stamped end of each piece to be verified. 3 - At least three random moisture readings shall be performed on wall and floor framing with documentation acceptable to the enforcing agency provided at the time of approval to enclose the wall and floor framing. Insulation products which are visibly wet or have a high moisture content shall be replaced or allowed to dry prior to enclosure in wall or floor cavities. Manufacturers’ drying recommendations shall be followed for wet-applied insulation products prior to enclosure.

Division 4.5 - Environmental Quality (Indoor Air Quality & Exhaust)

4.506.1 Bathroom Exhaust Fans
Each bathroom shall be mechanically ventilated and shall comply with the following: 1 - Fans shall be ENERGY STAR compliant and be ducted to terminate outside the building. 2 - Unless functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a humidity control. a) Humidity controls shall be capable of manual or automatic adjustment between a relative humidity range of less than 50% to a maximum of 80%. b) A humidity control may be a separate component to the exhaust fan and is not required to be integral or built-in. Note: For CALGreen a "bathroom" is a room which contains a bathtub, shower, or tub/shower combination. Fans are required in each bathroom.

Division 4.5 - Environmental Quality (Environmental Comfort)

4.507.2 Heating and Air Conditioning System Design
Heating and air conditioning systems shall be sized, designed, and equipment selected using the following methods: 1 - The heat loss and heat gain is established according to ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J - 2004 (Residential Load Calculation), ASHRAE handbooks or other equivalent design software or methods. 2 - Duct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1 Manual D - 2009 (Residential Duct Systems), ASHRAE handbooks or other equivalent design software or methods. 3 - Select heating and cooling equipment according to ANSI/ACCA 3 Manual S - 2004 (Residential Equipment Selection) or other equivalent design software or methods.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-16
Exception: Use of alternate design temperatures necessary to ensure the system functions are acceptable CHAPTER 7 - Installer & Special Inspector Qualifications (Qualifications, Verifications) 702.1 Installer Training
HVAC system installers shall be trained and certified in the proper installation of HVAC systems and equipment by a recognized training or certification program. Examples of acceptable HVAC training and certification programs include but are not limited to the following:
1 - State certified apprenticeship programs.
2 - Public utility training programs.
3 - Training programs sponsored by trade, labor or statewide energy consulting or verification organizations.
4 - Programs sponsored by manufacturing organizations.
5 - Other programs acceptable to the enforcing agency.
702.2 Special Inspection
Special inspectors must be qualified and able to demonstrate competence to the enforcing agency in the discipline in which they are inspecting.
703.1 Documentation
Documentation of compliance shall include, but is not limited to, construction documents, plans, specifications, builder or installer certification, inspection reports, or other methods acceptable to the local enforcing agency. Other specific documentation or special inspections necessary to verify compliance are specified in appropriate sections of CALGreen.
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) GHG Emissions
Threshold Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
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.

Construction of the project would generate GHG emissions through the use of on-site heavy-duty construction equipment and the addition of off-site vehicle trips generated by construction workers as well as haul/delivery trucks that travel to and from the project site. Mobile-source emissions would result from December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-17
the use of construction equipment such as graders, scrapers, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, cranes, etc.

Operation of the project is expected to result in emissions of GHG emissions related to vehicular trips (i.e., mobile-source emissions) and energy consumption from building illumination, heating and cooling, as well as water conveyance and treatment and solid waste disposal.

As directed in the Corona CAP CEQA thresholds and screening tables, project analysis can be conducted either through emissions calculations or by using the screening table provided in the CAP.11 For the project, CAP conformity is demonstrated via GHG emissions calculations. For new residential development, the amount of emissions required to be reduced under AB 32, which is equivalent to the reductions required by the City’s CAP, would be 21.7 percent when compared with BAU conditions and taking into account CARB’s revised BAU estimates for the State, inclusive of the economic recession.12 The project’s construction-related GHG emissions are provided in Table 4.F-1, Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Although GHGs are generated during construction and are accordingly considered one-time emissions, it is important to consider them when assessing all of the long-term GHG emissions associated with a project. The draft SCAQMD significance thresholds recommend that construction-related GHG emissions be amortized over a project’s 30-year lifetime in order to include these emissions as part of a project’s annualized lifetime total emissions, so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies. In accordance with this guidance, the estimated project’s construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period and are included in the annualized operational GHG emissions.

The project’s operational GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.F-2, Project-Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Project activities such as vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, use of energy resources, water/wastewater conveyance, etc., waste disposal and, as described above, amortized construction activity would generate GHG emissions. At the same time, the project would incorporate project design features beyond regulatory requirements that would reduce the potential amount of GHG emissions (refer to subsection 2.(c), Project Design Features). The estimated total annual project-related GHG emissions shown in Table 4.F-2 are based on the anticipated level of GHG emissions with implementation of these project design features. The total annual project emissions also include the estimated GHG emissions sequestered from the planting of new trees. The project will occur located on an undeveloped 271 acre plot, of which only 127 acres will be covered by the residential units. Based on carbon sequestration values calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),13 the 126 acres of preserved grassland and 17 acres of forest land containing 6,100 new trees, is estimated to increase the carbon sink capacity of the project site compared to pre-development levels.

The emissions shown in Table 4.F-2 also include emissions from a comparable BAU project. The BAU scenario emissions estimates include energy and water consumption in accordance with the minimum 11 City of Corona, Climate Action Plan, (2012). 12 The 2.38 metric tons per 1,000 for commercial space number was calculated by taking the factor of 23,203 MTCO2e of emissions to be reduced through new Commercial and Industrial Projects in the City and dividing that by 9,747,000 square feet of new commercial and industrial buildings anticipated within Corona to accommodate anticipated job growth, for a total of 2.38 MTCO2e per 1,000 square feet of building area. Generation factors were taken from the City of Corona CAP (2012). 13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Appendix 3a.4, (2003).

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-18
regulatory requirements during the time period consistent with CARB’s revised BAU estimates for the State.

The BAU project does not account for energy and water efficiency measures that would exceed the regulatory requirements that existing at the time CARB projected the State’s BAU GHG emissions, and does not account for reductions in mobile source GHG emissions from the availability of alternative transportation options and improved tailpipe emissions standards. As shown, the project would constitute an equivalent or larger reduction from BAU than has been determined by CARB to be necessary to meet the goals of AB 32 – that is, a reduction of at least 21.7 percent fewer GHG emissions than a comparable BAU development.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. (2) Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies and Regulations Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
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.

As stated previously the City of Corona has an adopted CAP. The City of Corona CAP is a planning and implementation tool to reduce the City’s GHG emissions to levels that are less-than or equal-to 1990’s levels by 2020. The CAP provides an analysis of the GHG emission sources that are attributed to the City; strategies for meeting regional, State, and Federal reduction targets; and methods for monitoring the City’s progress towards reaching those goals. As stated in Impact 4.F-1, the City has determined that the use of the SCAQMD’s draft quantitative thresholds is equivalent to the City’s “Greenhouse Gases Thresholds Points Table 4.F-1
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Phase
Annual Emissions (MTCO2e) a Onsite Offsite Total
Site Preparation (2015) 225.21 10.46 235.67
Grading (2015) 509.51 16.24 525.75
Paving (2016) 79.30 5.25 84.55
Building Construction (2017) 312.93 198.01 510.94
Building Construction (2018) 310.57 192.78 503.35
Building Construction (2019) 307.09 187.06 494.15
Building Construction (2020) 303.70 181.40 485.09
Building Construction (2021) 76.51 45.24 121.75
Architectural Coatings (2021) 9.59 6.17 15.76
Total 2,997.02
Amortized over Project Lifetime (30 years) 99.23
a MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, and/or nitrous oxide).

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014 December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-19
Worksheet.” As shown in Table 4.F-2, the project would result in GHG emissions that would be below the threshold of 21.7 percent reduction compared to a BAU project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the GHG reductions required in the City’s CAP and impacts would be less than significant. Table 4.F-3, 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 GHGs. As discussed in Table 4.F-3, the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies. As such, impacts related to consistency with applicable plans and regulations would be considered less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
GHGs and climate change are exclusively cumulative impacts. There are no non-cumulative GHG emissions impacts from a climate change perspective. As such, GHGs and climate change are cumulatively considerable, even though the contribution may be individually limited. SCAQMD methodology and thresholds are, thus, cumulative in nature. Therefore, the project area for cumulative impacts related to GHGs and climate change is the State of California.

As discussed earlier under Regulatory Setting and demonstrated in Table 4.F-1, the project would be consistent with California’s goal to reduce GHG emissions statewide. The project’s emissions, without considering cumulative global emissions, would not be enough to cause climate change. The project would Table 4.F-2
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Percent Reduction from
BAU Project BAU
Area 64.83 64.76 0.01 %
Energy 1,169.63 952.29 18.6 %
Mobile 4,994.84 3,535.40 29.2 %
Waste 155.18 155.18 0.0 %
Water 132.60 98.16 26.0 %
Subtotal – Operation 6,517.07 4,805.78 26.3 %
Subtotal – Construction
(Amortized over 30 years)

99.23 99.23 0.0 %
Carbon Sequestration from
Newly Planted Trees
-215.94 -215.94 0.0 %
Net Total 6,400.36 4,689.07 26.7 %
Emission Reduction Goal: 21.7 %
Does project achieve the reduction goal? Yes
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report, Skyline Heights Project, May 2014

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-20
Table 4.F-3
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Environmental Resources - Air Quality
Goal 1.5 – Distinct neighborhoods and
districts that contribute to the identity,
character, and image of Corona as a vital,
livable, diverse, innovative, and
environmentally sustainable community. Consistent. A full analysis of construction and operational impacts related to GHG 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 in Appendix C).

As indicated in the analysis of GHG emissions, the project would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans and would result in less than significant impacts.

Policy 1.5.14 – Require that developers
demonstrate water conservation in the
landscape design of their proposed
projects, such as the use of drought
tolerant species. Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, plantings on commonly-owned (i.e., under Homeowners’ Association [HOA] ownership) and private slopes would be chosen from the “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.

Policy 1.5.17 – Require that new
residential, commercial, office, and
industrial development be designed to
minimize consumption of and sustain
scarce environmental resources through
such methods as the following, as
applicable to the type and scale of
development.

Site design—concentration and
intermixing of development to
minimize vehicular trips and
promote walking, building
orientation in consideration of solar
access and heat gain and loss, and
other
Landscaping—drought-tolerant
species, use of recycled water for
irrigation, and other purposes
Capture of rainwater and re-use on
site
Building design and construction
materials—energy and water
efficient fixtures, recycled building
materials, insulation and wall
thickness, permeable paving
surfaces, and comparable techniques
Consistent. The project would minimize vehicle trips and promote walking by containing pedestrian routes and pathways, common open space and other amenities. The project would provide connectivity to Skyline Drive and associated trails allowing for pedestrian and bicycle access. The project would also provide connectivity to the Foothill Parkway west extension, which would serve to reduce traffic congestions on east-west thoroughfares in the City. The project would incorporate energy efficiency and water efficiency measures that would at a minimum meet the California Green Building Standards. 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 WUCOLS low- water plants minimizing the demand for irrigation water.

Goal 10.2 – Ensure sustainable use of
finite energy and water resources for the
long-term use of residents and visitors of
Corona.

Consistent. The project would incorporate energy efficiency and water efficiency measures that would at a minimum meet the California Green Building Standards for building energy use and indoor and outdoor water use. 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 WUCOLS low-water plants.

December 2015 4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.F-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-21
Goals and Policies Consistency
As indicated in the analysis of GHG emissions, the project would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans and would result in less than significant impacts.

Policy 10.2.5 – Require the use of
reclaimed water in common areas and
landscape treatments for all proposed
developments. Consistent. The project would incorporate appropriate systems to deliver reclaimed water to meet the project’s non-potable needs. As discussed in the Preliminary Reclaimed Water Report, prepared by KWC Engineers, dated January 16, 2014, computer modeling results verifies that adequate service pressures, at the meter locations, can be provided to the project during the demand scenarios considered.

Goal 10.21 – Reduce air quality
degradation through energy
conservation.

Consistent. See discussion under Goal 10.2 above.

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 10.2 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 10.2 above.

Source: City of Corona General Plan; PCR Services Corporation, 2014 be consistent with the state’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As such, the project’s contribution to climate change/worldwide GHG emissions would be less than significant.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the analysis above, the project would result in a less than significant impact and mitigation is not required.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts related to GHG would be less than significant.

4.F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.F-22
This page intentionally blank.

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials that could occur with implementation of the Project. Relevant regulations and existing conditions are described as well as the potential for the Project to: create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to hazardous materials; impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan; or, expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. This section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the site prepared by Hillman Consulting (2013) and a Fuel Modification Report prepared by BMLA Landscape Architecture (2014). These reports are provided in Appendix G of this EIR. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Existing Conditions
(1) Hazardous Materials/Records Review
Currently, the site is mostly vacant characterized by steep topography, generally increasing in elevation from the northeast to the southwest. The site is in an almost natural state with dense chaparral punctuated by sporadic stands of scrub oak covering most slopes. Several canyons and ravines that are located on the site convey natural drainage across the site. One single-family home is located within the larger annexation area surrounding the site, which is located to the north of the project site. 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 adjacent to and east of the existing residence.

Historically, the property has been primarily undeveloped since at least the early 1900s. The northwest portion of the site was used as a landing strip from approximately the 1950s until at least the 1990s. The abandoned landing strip, including a concrete pad that may have been used for a hanger, is located on the southern side of Mabey Canyon, south of Mabey Canyon Road and to the west of the Mabey Canyon Debris Basin. Some evidence of spills or releases was observed in the area of the abandoned landing strip during the site reconnaissance conducted as part of the Phase I ESA. In addition, running approximately parallel to the north of the landing strip between the landing strip and Mabey Canyon Road is a drainage culvert.

Multiple cars were observed to have been laid on their sides to construct the western portion of the southern berm. The vehicles appeared to be from the 1940s to 1960s. Some isolated areas of nuisance dumping were also observed during the site reconnaissance. More specifically, construction debris, including pieces of concrete; car parts; and trash were observed in several locations on the site. Currently, there are no utilities provided to the site. There is no evidence of wells or septic systems on the site.

As part of the ESA, environmental agency databases that log known hazardous site conditions were reviewed to ascertain whether the site or any adjacent properties were listed on such Federal, State, or local databases.

These databases list properties by location and provide historic information regarding past use and presence of hazardous conditions. The site was not identified on any of the regulatory databases searched and no

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-2
adjoining properties were identified on the databases. In addition, the site and adjoining properties were not identified on the Registered Storage Tank or on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Databases. No Brownfield listings were identified within a ½-mile radius of the site.

Radon, which is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless gas that is a byproduct of the decay of radioactive materials potentially present in bedrock and soil, can be a concern at a site since it can enter the lowest level of a building through floor cracks, structural joints or plumbing conduits. Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) data, the site is located in an area with a low potential for radon concentrations that exceed USEPA action guidelines. In addition, the County of Riverside is classified as Zone 3, or low risk area for radon.

In terms of other hazardous materials that can occur on a site, as there are no buildings on the site and the one single-family home with adjacent miscellaneous vacated buildings previously used for horse stables are located within the larger annexation area surrounding the site which are not to be removed, a screening of asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and mold were not undertaken as part of the ESA. Based on the ESA, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions was identified in connection with the site. The site and surrounding properties are not listed in any of the record searches in the ESA. (2) Areas of Fire Hazard/Wildfire
The site is adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest with residential development to the north and east and forest lands to the south. The site contains steep slopes and narrow canyons and is vegetated with chaparral with areas of buckwheat, grasses, chemise and ceanothus.

The City of Corona has conducted an analysis of fire hazards in the City and has determined that no areas within the City limits would be within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) classification.1 However, the site is located outside the City limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Therefore, the site is within the State Responsibility Area (SRA). Based on the State Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRAs for the County of Riverside, the project site is designated SRA VHFHSZ. As indicated in the General Plan Update Technical Background Report, the wildland/urban interfaces create extremely dangerous and complex fire situations. Development of lands within the SOI areas would increase the urban-wildland interface and associated wildland fire risk.

As indicated in the Fuel Modification Report, which is provided in Appendix G of this EIR, the site is located in an inland valley transitional environment, in which the summers are hot and the winters are mild.

Because of down slope air mass drainage, the site is not affected by freezing and the hot days are tempered by coastal effects of gentle breezes moving west to east through the Santa Ana canyon at the end of each day. Like most of the Inland Empire the effects of the Santa Ana winds have a strong impact on the site, especially throughout the fall months. The Santa Ana winds are strong off-shore winds driven by the heat of the desert creating a high pressure that can drive the wind gusts to 60 miles per hour and greater. The wind direction is generally out of the northeast. The site is also affected by the southwesterly breezes, which carrycoastal moisture down the slopes of the site, and which provide additional moisture to support the chaparral habitat for which the Cleveland National Forest is known.
1 City of Corona General Plan Update Technical Background Report, EIP Associates, March 2004.

December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-3
Though the Santa Ana winds are not limited to the fall months, the winds are especially impactful and create an identified fire season. Based on the Fuel Modification Report, the property has not been subject to a wild fire in several decades and has a high potential for large amounts of fuel loading in the understories of the large shrub masses. Due to the site’s proximity to wildland area, the geography of the area, and the density and type of vegetation, which can have very high oil content that can create fire danger, the site has a high potential for wildland fire danger.

An analysis of the provision of fire protection services is contained in Section 4.I, Public Services, of this EIR.

As indicated in Section 4.I, the City of Corona Fire Department (CFD), Riverside County Fire Department, and the California Department of Forestry all provide service to areas outside the City limits but within the SOI, depending on the location of a fire.
b. Regulatory Framework
This section provides a discussion of federal, state, and local regulations that address hazardous materials as well as wildland fires.
(1) Federal
(a) Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), a “hazardous” waste is defined as one “which because of its quantity, concentrations, or physiochemical or infectious properties, may either increase mortality or produce irreversible or incapacitating illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed” (U.S. Public Health and Welfare Code Section 25140-25145.4). Special handling and management are required for materials and wastes that exhibit hazardous properties. Treatment, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials are highly regulated at both the Federal and State levels.

Compliance with Federal and State hazardous materials laws and regulations minimizes the potential risks to the public presented by these potential hazards.

The Federal hazardous waste laws are generally contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Title 40 of the Code of Regulations at parts 239 through 282). These laws provide the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Businesses, institutions, and other entities that generate hazardous waste are required to identify and track their hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed of. The primary responsibility for implementing RCRA is assigned to the US EPA, although individual states are encouraged to seek authorization to implement some or all RCRA provisions.
(2) State
(a) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) The responsibility for implementation of RCRA was given to the DTSC in August 1992. The DTSC is also responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and so regulate a larger

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-4
number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California but not by US EPA are called “non-RCRA hazardous wastes.”
(b) Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, otherwise known as the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (“Unified Program”), was created in 1993 by Senate Bill 1082 to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the following hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs (Program Elements):

Hazardous Waste Generation (including on-site treatment under Tiered Permitting); Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks (APST) (only the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan [SPCC]);
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs);
Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventories; California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP); and Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Material Management Plans and Inventories. (c) California Health and Safety Code
The Code regulates health and safety including hazardous waste and materials, household waste, vectors, emergency preparedness, fire hazards, radiation, and water protection. (d) Hazardous Building Components
Structural building components sometimes contain hazardous materials such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, and mercury. These materials are subject to various regulatory protocols. However, there are no structures located on the site and therefore, these regulations would not be applicable. The one single-family home with adjacent miscellaneous vacated buildings previously used for horse stables are located within the larger annexation area surrounding the site which are not to be removed. (e) California Fire Plan
The California Fire Plan is the State’s plan for reducing the risk of wildfire through a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). By placing the emphasis on prevention, the Fire Plan looks to reduce firefighting costs and property losses; to increase firefighter safety; and to contribute to ecosystem health. The Fire Plan sets up the structure of County-level plans. However, the Fire Plan is structured so that individual fire departments can establish plans and policies for land within their respective jurisdictions.

Sections 51175-51189 of the California Government Code (GC) define responsibilities for CAL FIRE and for local agencies. Sections 51178 and 51181 define the CAL FIRE Director’s responsibility to identify VHFHSZs; transmit this information to local agencies; and periodically review the recommendations relative to December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-5
identification of VHFHSZs. In part, Sections 51178.5 and 51179 define the local agency’s responsibility to make the recommendation available for public review and to designate, by ordinance, VHFHSZs in its jurisdiction. Section 51176 identifies that land is classified in the State “in accordance with whether a VHFHSZ is present so that public officials are able to identify measures that will retard the rate of spread, and reduce the potential intensity, of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property, and to require that those measures be taken.” Sections 51175-51189 direct CAL FIRE to map areas of VHFHSZ within Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) and SRAs. Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the state, local government, or the federal government. LRAs include the incorporated cities, cultivated agricultural lands, and portions of the desert with service typically provided by municipal fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to the local government. SRAs include areas of the state in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires has been determined to be primarily the responsibility of the State.

Mapping of the VHFHSZs is based on relevant factors such as fuels, terrain, and weather. VHFHSZ maps were initially developed in the mid-1990s, but are now being updated based on improved science, mapping techniques, and data. Mapping was prepared by CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program using data and models that describe development patterns, potential fuels over a 30-50 year horizon, expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure to new construction. Based on the State “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA” for the County of Riverside, the project site is designated SRA VHFHSZ. When development is located within a VHFHSZ, annual vegetation clearing, building design/materials restrictions, and other building mandates are required to protect properties from wildfire.
(f) California Fire Code (CFC) 2010, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9 The City of Corona has adopted the 2013 CFC. The purpose of the CFC is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
(i) CFC Chapter 49, Fire Code, Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas The purpose of Chapter 49, Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, of the CFC is to provide minimum standards to increase the ability of a building to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements.
(g) California Building Code Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure
The purpose of Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, of the California Building Code (CBC) is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) within SRAs or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses. Chapter 7A applies to

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-6
building materials, systems and or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings within a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
(h) Local
(i) City of Corona General Plan, Environment Hazards and Public Safety Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, of the City of Corona’s General Plan addresses the provision of public utilities and services, including the provision of fire protection services. Chapter 4 contains goals and policies regarding fire protection services. An analysis of project consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s Infrastructure and Public Services Element regarding fire services is provided in the Analysis of Project Impacts subsection, below (see Threshold 7).

Chapter 6, Environment Hazards and Public Safety, of the City of Corona’s General Plan contains the City’s Public Health and Safety Element. The chapter of the General Plan addresses environmental hazards including: seismic, geologic, erosion; flooding; hazardous materials; noise control; and emergency/disaster preparedness. An analysis of project consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s Public Health and Safety Element regarding hazards and hazardous materials is provided in the Analysis of Project Impacts subsection, below (see Threshold 7).
(ii) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.36, Fire Facilities Fee It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to implement the City’s General Plan to attempt to assure that fire facilities which satisfy City standards are available concurrent with the need caused by new development within the City. Due to the location of certain development within the urban/wildland interface area by the Cleveland National Forest, such development will create a fire hazard impacts not found in other parts of the City. The City has established a fire facilities fee to fund the provision of fire provision services to property located within this urban/wildland interface.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The analysis focuses on the hazardous materials and potential hazards associated with wildland fires that could occur as a result of the residential subdivision. An ESA was conducted on the site to assess the environmental condition of a property to determine the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances that could result in an existing, previously existing, or potential release of a hazardous substance on the site.

The methodology for preparation of the ESA include review of USGS map; review of historical records; review of previous Phase I ESA; a search of environmental regulatory databases; and visual reconnaissance.

The ESA was conducted using generally accepted Phase I ESA industry standards in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05 for Phase I ESAs. Information from the assessment was used to determine whether any portion of the 270.9-acre site is on a list of hazardous materials sites or would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that construction and operation of the proposed project would be in compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-7
The Fuel Modification Report provides information regarding existing site conditions and provides a plan that would be reviewed by the CFD. The Fuel Modification Plan is summarized below under the Project Design Features subsection.
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 hazards and hazardous materials that are utilized as the thresholds of significance in this section (Thresholds 1-8). Accordingly, the proposed project may create a significant environmental impact if it would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-1); Threshold 2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-1);
Threshold 3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-2);
Threshold 4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-3); Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area (refer to Impact Statement

4.G-4);
Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-4); Threshold 7: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating any physical impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials (i.e., impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan) (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-5); or Threshold 8: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (refer to Impact Statement 4.G-6).

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-8
c. Project Design Features
The Project would include the implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan, which would be approved by the CFD. Figure 4.G-1A, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan – Northerly Half of Skyline Heights, and Figure 4.G1B, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan – Southerly Half of Skyline Heights, illustrate the zones that would be established on the site in order to provide protection from fire hazards. The residential lots would be maintained, irrigated defensible space and would conform to the defensible space principles set forth by the City’s Health and Safety Codes and Building Code. No encroachment of flammable improvements from the private lots into the fuel modification zones would be allowed. All planting would comply with the City’s adopted acceptable plant list and irrigated to maintain moisture content. The defensible space zone would be a minimum of 30 feet between the property line and the structure.

All structures and/or residences built within the proposed development would include, but not be limited to, the following:

All residences would be sprinklered;
All structures would comply with applicable City Building Codes, International Wildland-Urban Interface Codes, and California Fi re and Building Codes; Roof overhangs or eaves on lots adjacent to Fuel Modification Zone I would be enclosed with 1-hour rated or non-combustible materials per City Building Code and skylights would not be allowed on structure roofs in these areas;
Structures such as patios, decks, arbors and fences would be constructed of non-combustible materials;
Any chimney, flue or stovepipe would have an approved spark arrestor;2and All structures that are located within 200 feet of wildland areas would have one-hour constructed eaves around the entire perimeter of the structure.

The common open space areas within the site would be located in the Maintained, Irrigated Landscape Improvement Zones as shown in Figures 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B. These areas would consist of manufactured slopes, planted recreational spaces and flood and water quality basins. The areas would contain 15-foot wide access maintenance paths and service access roads where required for basin maintenance. Any constructed features, such as walls, fences, and pilasters within these areas would be constructed of nonflammable material. The plant material would conform to the Plant Palette for Defensible Space Guideline provided by the City’s Fire Department. Spaces would be irrigated in accordance with the City’s standards.

These areas would be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA).

Fuel Modification Zone 1 (see Figures 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B above) would be a minimum of 30 feet wide measured horizontally from the residential property line. Native vegetation would be removed in these areas and would be replaced with plants from the Plant Palette for Defensible Space Guideline provided by the CFD. The areas would be overhead irrigated to provide moisture content in the plantings. Any 2 An approved spark arrestor is defined as a device constructed of non-flammable materials, 12 gauge minimum thickness, or other approved material found satisfactory by the Corona Fire Department, and having 1/2” perforations for arresting carbon or sparks and installed to be visible for the purposes of inspection and maintenance.

Conceptual Fuel Modi FIGURE ca on Plan – Northerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 4.G-1A Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N Conceptual Fuel Modi FIGURE ca on Plan – Southerly Por on of Skyline Heights Skyline Heights Project 4.G-1B Source: bmla Landscape Architecture, 2014. 0 600 Feet N December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-11
maintenance pathways or service roads contained in Fuel Modification Zone 1 would be fenced and gated and kept weed free. The Fuel Modification Zone 1 would be maintained by the HOA.

Fuel Modification Zone 2 (see Figures 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B above) would be a minimum of 70 feet wide beginning at the outer limits of Zone 1. Native vegetation would be thinned by 50 percent to remove the fuel loading and dead vegetation from this zone. The area would be maintained in accordance with the City’s weed abatement policies. The Fuel Modification Zone 2 would be maintained by the HOA.

The fuel modification treatments that include trimming of native vegetation must be complete prior to delivery of combustible material to the site in order to provide protection during construction of the subdivision.
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold 2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
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 significant impacts regarding hazardous materials to a less than significant level.
(1) Construction
Based on the ESA and as discussed above, the site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites (Cortese List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The site is vacant and therefore, no buildings that could contain hazardous materials such as asbestos or lead would be demolished. The singlefamily home with adjacent miscellaneous vacated buildings previously used for horse stables are located within the larger annexation area surrounding the site which are not to be removed. During construction, hazardous materials, such as gasoline and oil would be used. However, compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential significant impacts regarding hazardous materials to a less than significant level.
(2) Operation
The Project includes the development of 292 residences and would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. The proposed residential uses would result in the use of ordinary household or general commercial cleaners, solvents, painting supplies, pesticides for

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-12
landscaping and pool maintenance, and other substances utilized for cleaning and maintenance of residential development. These types of chemicals are not considered acutely hazardous, and would be used in limited quantities. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local health and safety standards and regulations. Any associated risk transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations.

Threshold 3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 single-family 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.

The site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest school. In addition, the 292 proposed residences that would be located on the site would not emit hazardous emissions. While the residences would use small amounts of hazardous materials as discussed above under Impact Statement 4.G-1, the quantities would be small. As the residences would not emit hazardous emissions or result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste aside from what is routinely used in residences within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant impact would occur.

Threshold 4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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.

As discussed above under Environmental Setting, a Phase I ESA was performed on the parcels that comprise the site. The ESA provides information within a one-mile radius. Based on the ESA, the project site is not on a list of Hazardous Waste and Substances (Cortese) List compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and no significant impact would occur.

Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-13
Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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.

The Corona Municipal Airport is located in the northwest portion of the City at 1900 Aviation Drive, approximately three miles north of the site. The airport is recreational (i.e., it is not used by commercial aircraft) and is located on approximately 100 acres of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and leased by the City of Corona. The airport has a 600-plane capacity and currently serves 350 to 400 general aviation aircraft. The airport is operated by the City’s Maintenance Services Department.

The Corona Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission in 1993. The Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains policies to maintain flight paths and minimize impacts to residents and employees of the area for this general aviation facility.

The site is not located within the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan area. In addition, no private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in an aircraft safety hazard for people living in the project area.

Threshold 7: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating any physical impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials (i.e., impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan)?
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.

As indicated previously, the project would result in the development of 292 residences. As such, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be limited. As such, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation associated with hazards or hazardous materials or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan.

With regard to emergency response plans, the City of Corona Emergency Operations Plan addresses the planned response to emergency situations associated with natural or human caused disasters and technological incidents. The Plan includes a matrix of functions and responsibilities for each department, by potential disaster. However, residential uses do not typically result in accidents associated with hazardous materials. In the event of a natural disaster, the City would respond as appropriate.

As shown in Table 4.G-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, Goal 11.3 addresses the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors through good land use planning and adherence to applicable regulations

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-14
Table 4.G-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Infrastructure and Public Services – Police and Fire
Goal 9.6 – Address fire prevention measures on open
space land to reduce the risk of wildland fires.

Consistent. The project would implement a fuel
modification plan designed specifically to help suppress a wildland fire in different ways. With implementation
of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures relating to fire prevention, any significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Because the
site is not maintained as a fuel modification area and
consists of uncontrolled wildland vegetation, existing
single-family residences to the north, northeast, and east of the site would gain increased protection from the
spread of fire. As such, the proposed project would
reduce the threat of wildland fires to people and
structures in the project vicinity and thus, reduce the demand for fire services needed in the event of a
wildland fire. In addition, in the event of a wildland fire in the project vicinity, the CFD has automatic aid
agreements with all fire agencies in State.

Policy 9.6.1 – Implement brush clearing and other fire
prevention programs on Open Space lands, thereby
reducing the possibility for the encroachment of
wildland fires onto inhabited areas (in consideration of maintenance programs for important plant and animal
habitats).

Policy 9.6.2 – Remove chaparral and other highly
flammable vegetation and replace it with slow-burning
and fire-resistant species in natural areas that are
proximate to urbanized areas.

Environmental Hazards and Public Safety – Hazardous Materials Goal 11.3 – Ensure that the health, safety and general
welfare of residents and visitors of the City of Corona including the overall health of the natural environment is provided through good land use planning and strict
adherence and enforcement of the City of Corona
Hazardous Material Area Plan, Uniform Fire Code,
Certified Unified Program Agency, and other pertinent
sources and documents.

Consistent. A Phase 1 ESA was prepared for the site.

Based on the ESA, no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions was identified in connection
with the site. The site and surrounding properties are
not listed in any of the record searches in the ESA. The project would result in 292 residences on the site.

Compliance with applicable regulations regarding the
storage and disposal of household hazardous wastes
would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-15
regarding hazardous materials. The site is located in the City’s SOI and the project would result in the annexation into the City and development of the site. Thus, development is anticipated on the site and has been considered in the City’s planning efforts. In addition, compliance with applicable regulations regarding the storage and disposal of household hazardous wastes would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goal and policies relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, no significant impact with regard to emergency response plans would occur.

Threshold 8: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
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 involving wildland fires. Thus, no significant impact would occur with regard to wildland fires with implementation of applicable project design features and mitigation measures.

As discussed above, the site is located within a VHFHSZ within a SRA.3 Due to the location of the site within the urban/wildland interface area by the Cleveland National Forest and the development of the proposed residential subdivision, the project would locate people within the wildland/urban interface area, which could pose a safety threat to the public and firefighters. Approval and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan would be required for the project as indicated in correspondence from the CFD.4 The proposed Fuel Modification Plan is described in Section 2.c, Project Design Features, above, and would be reviewed and approved by the CFD prior to implementation. In addition, compliance with the CBC Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure), would be required to be clearly shown on the building plans submitted for review and approval by the CFD. The creation of the different zones as shown in the Fuel Modification Plan and the use of non-flammable materials in compliance with code requirements would serve to reduce the potential fire hazard.

The project would not conflict with General Plan policies regarding wildland fires. As shown in Table 4.G-1, consistent with Policy 9.6.2, the project would result in the replacement of highly flammable vegetation with plants on the City’s approved list of fire-resistant species as indicated in the proposed Fuel Modification Plan.

In addition, maintenance of the zones would be completed by the HOA, which would ensure continued maintenance over time.

The site is not currently maintained as a fuel modification area and consists of uncontrolled wild land vegetation. The implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan would provide some protection to the existing single-family residences to the north, northeast, and east of the site. As such, the proposed project could reduce the threat of wildland fires to people and structures in the project vicinity and thus, could reduce the demand for fire services needed in the event of a wildland fire. In the event of a wildland fire in the project vicinity, the CFD has automatic aid agreements with all fire agencies in State. 3 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Western Riverside County, adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. 4 Cindi Schmitz, Corona Fire Department, Email correspondence, dated February 27, 2014.

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-16
With implementation of the project design feature (i.e., Fuel Modification Plan), as required by Mitigation Measure PS-1 below, compliance with all applicable regulations regarding fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants, and the prescribed mitigation measures relating to fire prevention contained in Section 4.I, Public Services, of this EIR, any significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, would be reduced to a less than significant level.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The health and safety hazards posed by most hazardous materials are typically local in nature. They generally do not combine in any cumulative sense with the hazards of other projects. Possible exceptions, however, include potential toxic air contaminant emissions, transportation of hazardous materials, and waste disposal. The need to respond to hazardous materials emergencies could also increase as a result of cumulative development. However, as indicated above, the residential development of the site would result in limited use of hazardous materials. Such use would include materials that are typically used in residences.

As such, the project would not result in a significant impact with regard to hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

With regards to cumulative impacts regarding adopted emergency response and evacuation plans, all related projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine consistency with applicable plans.

For example, all related projects would be required to provide the minimum number of required emergency access roads per applicable regulatory requirements and any related traffic improvements would be reviewed by the CFD for approval of emergency access as required by the City. The project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response and evacuation plans and as such, would not contribute impacts that are cumulatively considerable regarding impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

With regards to cumulative impacts associated with wildland fires, the project site and vicinity is located in an area highly prone to wildfires. Similar to the Project, any related project adjacent to an area susceptible to wildland fire hazards would be required to implement a Fuel Modification Plan. Mitigation of potential wildland fire hazards is regulated by federal, state, and local requirements, and would be addressed on an individual basis. There would be a beneficial effect from the project in reducing the potential for exposure to wildland fires on existing residential uses in the local project vicinity. Therefore, with implementation of requirements, including a Fuel Modification Plan, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts relative to wildfire hazards.

In summary, the project would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts with regard to hazardous materials, emergency response plans or hazards. Therefore, no mitigation measures to address cumulative impacts would be necessary.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the analysis above, the project would result in a no significant or less than significant impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. However, to ensure that impacts remain below the threshold, the following mitigation measures provided in Section 4.I, Public Services, of this Draft EIR with regard to fire protection services are also recommended to address wildland fire hazards:

December 2015 4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-17
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. The project Applicant shall implement the fuel modification plan and other CFD-required fire life safety features prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

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.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With compliance with applicable requirements regarding hazards and hazardous materials and with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be remain below the threshold.

4.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.G-18
This page intentionally blank.

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions in the City of Corona from implementation of the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon a Preliminary Drainage Report (Hydrology Study) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which were both prepared by KWC Engineers in January 2014 as well as the Infiltration Opportunities, Constraints and Recommendations for Water Quality Treatment Purposes prepared by Ginter & Associates, Inc. in May 2013. These documents are included in Appendix H of this EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Existing Water Quality Conditions
(a) Santa Ana Region
The project site is located within Region 8 (Santa Ana Region) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana River and its principal tributaries begin in the San Bernardino Mountains, the eastern San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The Santa Ana Region’s boundaries are illustrated in Figure 4.H-1, Santa Ana Region Watershed Map. The project site falls within the Santa Ana River Watershed, with the primary water quality concerns being wastewater reclamation (Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] and nitrogen issues), groundwater recharge, water level management, and invasive plant eradication. Table 4.H-1, Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from the Project Site, identifies receiving waters that would receive urban stormwater runoff from the project site, the listed water quality impairments, and beneficial uses associated with these water bodies (also see further discussion below regarding beneficial uses). According to the Santa Ana Water Quality Control Plan, water quality in the project area is continuously altered by a number of factors including, but not limited to, consumptive use, importation of water high in dissolved solids, runoff from urban and agricultural areas, and the recycling of water within the basin. In general, water quality in the Santa Ana Region becomes progressively poorer as water moves along hydraulic flow paths. The highest quality water is typically associated with tributaries flowing from surrounding mountains and groundwater recharged by these streams. As indicated above in Table 4.H-1, each of the receiving waters has multiple designated beneficial uses. These designations provide a description of how the water is used and what beneficial purposes it serves. The following provides a description of each of these water uses for the two affected receiving water bodies.1 Agricultural Supply (AGR) – Waters used for farming, horticulture, or ranching, including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation. 1
State Water Resources Control Board. “Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8).” Updated July 2014.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-2
Groundwater Recharge (GWR) – Waters used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RARE) – Waters support the habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.

Water Contact Recreation (REC1) – Waters used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, water-skiing, whitewater activities, fishing, and use of natural hot springs.

Non-contact Water Recreation (REC2) – Waters used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, camping, boating, hunting, sightseeing, and aesthetic enjoyment.

Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) – Waters that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including invertebrates.

Wildlife Habitat (WILD) – Water that support wildlife habitats including, but not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by wildlife, such as waterfowl. (2) Existing Surface Hydrology and Drainage Conditions
The project site is located within the Foothill area of the City’s West Sphere of Influence (SOI) within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which encompasses approximately 153.2 square miles across three counties (San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County). Flows within this watershed start in the San Bernardino Valley, crossing Riverside and Orange Counties before emptying into the Pacific Ocean.

The project site consists of sparsely vegetated and otherwise undeveloped land with the exception of dirt roads. The site is characterized by steep topography, generally increasing in elevation from the northeast to Table 4.H-1
Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from the Project Site Receiving Waters 303(d) List Impairments Designated Beneficial Uses Proximity to RARE Beneficial
Use
Temescal Creek, Reach 1 pH REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD -- Santa Ana River, Reach 3 Bacteria and Viruses
(Pathogens), Copper (wet
season) and Lead
AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2,
WARM, WILD, RARE -- Notes: pH = percent hydrogen (acidity/alkalinity); AGR = Agricultural Supply; GWR = Ground Water Recharge; REC1 = Water Contact Recreation; REC2 = Non-contact Water Recreation; WARM = Warm Water Freshwater Habitat; WILD = Wildlife Habitat; RARE = Rare, threatened, or endangered species.

Source: KWC Engineers, 2014 and PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

Santa Ana River Watershed Map FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-1
Source: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conserva on District, 2009.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-4
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-5
the southwest. There are several canyons and ravines on the site that convey natural drainage across the site. The site generally drains from southwest to northeast, in a natural canyon flow condition, with the flowline of the streams having an average slope of about 10 to 20 percent. Figure 4.H-2, Existing Site Hydrology, illustrates the current drainage patterns within and surrounding the project site. There are four major watersheds on and adjacent to the site: Areas A, B, C, and D. Area A is approximately 15.4 acres in size and is located north of Mabey Canyon and is situated entirely on the site.

The northerly and westerly portion of Area A drains north and west. Area B is approximately 48.2 acres in size and is located south of Mabey Canyon and is situated entirely on the site. Currently, the natural canyon flows into an engineered open space west of Cape Drive, into a concrete trapezoidal channel that flows towards Border Avenue. Area C, which is approximately 311.6 acres in size, is located south of Area B and extends in a westerly direction off the site. The un-named blueline stream, which is located in Area C, flows into the Oak Street Debris Basin via an engineered concrete trapezoidal channel. Area D, which is approximately 44.5 acres, is located on the southern portion of the site and extends beyond the site boundary. The natural canyon drains into a storm drain located in Trudy Way which outlets into the Oak Street Debris Basin. The total site drainage area comprises approximately 419.7 acres and under existing conditions generates 977.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the 100-year event and 594.9 cfs in the 10-year event.

There are two USGS designated blueline streams onsite. Mabey Canyon flows into an existing basin prior to discharging towards Lincoln Avenue. The other un-named stream flows into Kroonen Channel and the Oak Street Debris Basin prior to discharging into the Oak Creek Channel.

Since the site is undeveloped there are no major drainage improvements on-site or upstream of the site. The City of Corona Drainage Master Plan does not identify the drainage facilities for the area surrounding the Skyline Heights project site area. Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff is conveyed via natural channel flow through the site and discharges into storm drains in Border Avenue, Lincoln Avenue and the Oak Street Channel before discharging into Temescal Creek – Reach 1, which is located approximately three miles north of the site.
(3) Groundwater Resources
Water resources in the City and throughout Riverside County are sustained by substantial groundwater basins, which are used as reservoirs to store water during wet years. These underground reservoirs are tapped throughout the year according to the demand for water. Groundwater conditions in these basins are influenced by natural hydrologic conditions such as percolation of precipitation, groundwater seepage, and ephemeral stream flow within the watershed areas.

As discussed in the 2008 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP, included as Appendix D to the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan [UWMP]), the City’s service area overlays the Temescal, Bedford, and Coldwater sub-basins, though only the Temescal sub-basin underlies a portion of the site. The Temescal subbasin is a DWR-defined sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, bounded on the north by the Chino sub-basin and the south by the Elsinore Groundwater Basin. The GWMP mentions that the Bedford and Coldwater sub-basins were historically considered a part of the Elsinore Groundwater Basin, but are not DWR-defined sub-basins. Figure 4.H-3, Groundwater Basins, illustrates the extents of the Temescal sub-basin and the approximate locations of the Bedford and Coldwater sub-basins.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-6
The City’s groundwater supplies are pumped from the Temescal, Bedford, and Coldwater sub-basins. The City has 25 groundwater wells consisting of 20 wells in the Temescal sub-basin, seven of which feed the Temescal Desalter, and five wells in the Coldwater sub-basin, two of which are inactive. In the past decade the City has strived to increase the production of local water relative to imported water. In 2000, water from the all of the basins composed 33 percent of total production. Since 2006, this percentage has varied between 53 and 62 percent.

The three sub-basins from which the City extracts groundwater are not adjudicated, as defined by DWR.

Therefore, there are no defined legal pumping rights for the City. While there is no formal legal adjudication of the basins, a memorandum of agreement concerning water production from the Coldwater sub-basin went into effect December 1, 2008. The agreement arose because a groundwater well (Trilogy Well), constructed by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) was not located in accordance with terms of a previous legal agreement established in 1963.

The new agreement ensures that the City and the EVMWD will be allowed to pump sufficient water from the Coldwater sub-basin to meet their respective requirements and to maximize the sustainable use of the Coldwater sub-basin as a water supply. According to the agreement, an operating committee will annually determine the amount of groundwater that can be safely extracted from the Coldwater sub-basin. (a) Bedford Sub-basin
The Bedford sub-basin is located south of the Temescal sub-basin in Temescal Canyon between the Santa Ana Mountains and the El Sobrante Hills (see Figure 4.H-3). The basin covers an area of approximately ten square miles with an alluvial depth ranging from 30 to 200 feet. Groundwater within the basin tends to flow northwest into the Temescal sub-basin. The City has abandoned one potable well in the Bedford sub-basin, Well No. 4, and has two non-potable wells that can be used to supplement reclaimed water from the water reclamation facility (WRF). Between 2007 and 2009, an average of just under 300 acre-feet per year (AFY) was supplied by the non-potable wells. The City currently does not use the non-potable wells for a continuous source of supply, but they can supplement the reclaimed water system when necessary. With additional treatment, the City may use the wells as a potable supply source in the future.

Other extractors from the basin have been EVMWD and Foothill Properties. EVMWD extracted 616 AF from four wells in 1993, and Foothill Properties extracted 887 AF from three wells in 1993. According to the 2008 GWMP, the City may plan to re-drill this source for future use. (b) Coldwater Sub-basin
The City acquired the rights to the surface flows of Coldwater Canyon in 1964 when it purchased the assets of the Corona City Water Company (CCWC). To meet DPH requirements, the surface flow is spread in percolation ponds and extracted by the City’s three Glen Ivy area wells in the Coldwater sub-basin.

The Coldwater sub-basin is located southwest of the Bedford sub-basin and the Temescal Wash (see Figure 4.H-3). The basin encompasses an area of approximately 2.6 square miles and lies within the structural graben between the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the El Sobrante Hills to the east. The Coldwater sub-basin is bound by the North Glen Ivy Fault to the northeast. The North Glen Ivy Fault behaves as an effective barrier to groundwater flow and prevents migration of groundwater from the Coldwater Exis ng Site Hydrology FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-2
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. 0 800 Feet N

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-8
This page intentionally blank.

Groundwater Basins FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-3
Source: City of Corona, 2013. N 0 3 Miles

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-10
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-11
sub-basin into the Temescal Wash. Groundwater levels throughout the basin typically respond rapidly to precipitation and recharge because of the high permeability and limited groundwater storage within this basin.

The City and EVMWD are the two major extractors of groundwater from the Coldwater sub-basin. The City currently operates three wells in the Coldwater sub-basin. Future production from the Coldwater sub-basin is projected to remain static through the year 2030.
(c) Temescal Basin
The Temescal sub-basin encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles bound by the Santa Ana River, La Sierra Hills, El Sobrante Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains. Typical depths for the City’s wells in the Temescal sub-basin range from 180 to 480 feet. Groundwater quality of these wells typically does not meet the EPA and DPH maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for nitrate (45 mg/L). The shallow basin groundwater typically has levels of nitrates ranging from 4.0 to 110 mg/L, some of which require treatment and/or blending to meet regulatory requirements.
(d) Groundwater Levels and Historical Trends
The groundwater sub-basins underlying the City have undergone significant changes since groundwater development began in the early 1900s. Since that time, the groundwater sub-basins have supported a variety of uses including extensive agricultural irrigation (especially citrus), industrial demand from mining and citrus packaging, and increasing urban use. Early agricultural activities in the sub-basins were supplemented by diversions of surface water imported into the basin. Agricultural reliance on groundwater increased through the 1940s and 1950s, peaking in the early 1960s but continuing into the 1970s.

Increasing urban use has replaced most of that early agricultural demand. Groundwater pumping has varied over time and by sub-basin. In the late 1940s, the total amount of groundwater pumping in the sub-basins was about 20,000 AFY. That amount increased to between 25,000 AFY and 32,000 AFY from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s. Total groundwater pumping decreased to below 20,000 AFY in the 1980s and early 1990s due to a decrease in agricultural irrigation, but has increased to about 25,000 AFY in recent years due to municipal pumping for urban uses. Most of the pumping occurred in the Temescal sub-basin.

Production in the Coldwater sub-basin has been less than 25 percent in recent years. Bedford sub-basin production is relatively minor and currently is only used to supplement the reclaimed water system when necessary. Total production exceeded 15,000 AFY in the Temescal sub-basin from 1951 to 1978 in support of agriculture irrigation with peak production occurring from 1959 through 1964. Production declined to below 10,000 AFY by 1979 and averaged about 9,419 AFY over the next 17 years (1979-1996). During this time, agricultural pumping had significantly declined, but municipal pumping had not yet increased. Since 2002, pumping has exceeded 20,000 AFY for the first time since the 1960s peak irrigation totals.

Total production in the Coldwater sub-basin typically ranges from less than 3,000 AFY to more than 10,000 AFY. Since 1980, production has averaged 7,018 AFY. Production from Bedford sub-basin is significantly less than in Temescal or Coldwater sub-basins. Since 1947, Bedford sub-basin production has ranged from 373 AFY to 4,658 AFY and has declined slightly over time with decreasing agriculture land use. The City has not supplied its potable water system from the Bedford sub-basin since 2000. The City has two non-potable

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-12
wells which supplement the reclaimed water system from the Bedford sub-basin, but currently does not rely upon these for continuous use.
(e) Sources of Recharge and Discharge
The Temescal sub-basin receives runoff and recharge from almost 14,000 acres of uplands in the adjacent Santa Ana Mountains. Watersheds contributing runoff from the east are almost as large, but contribute less runoff because of lower elevations and corresponding precipitation.

Temescal Wash is lined through most of the Corona city limits. The only unlined portion of the wash in the Temescal sub-basin is the 1.5-mile area where the wash emerges from Temescal Canyon. This area is characterized by high groundwater, likely the result of infiltration of stream flow and relatively fine-grained surficial deposits. Other than limited infiltration in this narrow section of the sub-basin, Temescal Wash does not contribute significant natural recharge to the Temescal sub-basin. However, the City operates three water reclamation facilities (WRFs), two of which provide percolation to groundwater in the Temescal subbasin via wastewater discharge ponds.

Volume typically ranges between 4,000 and 10,000 AFY. Watersheds contributing runoff to the Coldwater sub-basin and Bedford sub-basin cover 9,525 acres and 11,858 acres, respectively, more than three times the area of the sub-basin. Although the watershed contributing runoff to the Bedford sub-basin is more than 2,000 acres larger than the Coldwater watershed, the Coldwater sub-basin receives more runoff due to the higher watershed elevations.
(4) Floodplains
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) established the National Flood Insurance Program, which is based on the minimal requirements for flood plain management and is designed to minimize flood damage within Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency that administrates the National Flood Insurance Program. Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) are defined as areas that have a one-percent chance of flooding within a given year, also referred to as the 100-year flood.

Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were developed to identify areas of flood hazards within a community.

According to the FIRM catalog, the FIRM produced by FEMA that cover the project area are Map Nos. 06065C1351G and 06065C1353G.2 As illustrated on the FIRM, the project site is located outside the FIRM study limits and currently within an unmapped Zone X area. b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal
(a) Clean Water Act
In 1972, President Nixon signed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (now known as the Clean Water Act) into law (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) for purposes of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nations’ waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources. More specifically, the Act introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the 2 Both maps were revised on August 28, 2008.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-13
discharge of pollutants to “Waters of the U.S.”3from any point source.4In 1987, the Clean Water Act was amended to require that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) establish regulations for permitting municipal and industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES permit program. Final regulations regarding storm water discharges were issued on November 16, 1990, and require that municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges and industrial (including construction) storm water discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES permit.

The Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards for receiving water bodies and to have those standards approved by the USEPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular receiving water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with the water quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Water quality criteria are prescribed concentrations or levels of constituents (such as lead, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform bacteria) or narrative statements that represent the quality of water that support a particular use. Because the State of California was unable to develop these standards for priority toxic pollutants, the USEPA promulgated the California Toxics Rule in 1992 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 131.38), which fills this gap. As a separate Rule, the California Toxics Rule is discussed further below under State regulations.

When water quality issues compromise the designated beneficial uses of a particular receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the identification and listing of that water body as “impaired”.

Once a water body has been deemed impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, non-point, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (plus a “margin of safety”). Once established, the TMDL allocates the loads among the water body’s current and future pollutant sources.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is a program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into “Waters of the U.S.”, including wetlands.

Activities that affect “Waters of the U.S.” that are regulated under this program include fills for development (including physical alterations to drainages to accommodate storm drainage, stabilization, and flood-control improvements); water resource projects (such as dams and levees); infrastructure development (such as highways and airports); and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. The USEPA and the USACE have issued Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) that regulate dredge and fill activities, including water quality aspects of such activities.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that any person applying for a federal permit or license that may result in a discharge of pollutants into “Waters of the U.S.” must obtain a State water quality certification ensuring that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions.

Section 404 permits and authorizations are subject to a Section 401 certification by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
3 “Waters of the U.S.” include all waters that have, are, or may be used in interstate or foreign commerce (including sightseeing or hunting), including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and all interstate waters including interstate wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). 4
Point sources are discrete water conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-14
(b) Federal Antidegradation Policy
The federal Antidegradation Policy was released in 1968 and was included in the USEPA’s first Water Quality Standards Regulation. The Antidegradation Policy represents a three-tiered approach to maintaining and protecting water quality. First, all existing beneficial uses and levels of water quality necessary to protect those uses must be preserved and protected from degradation. Second, water quality must be protected in areas where the quality cannot support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation (“fishable/swimmable”). Third, the policy provides special protection of waters for which the ordinary water quality criteria are not sufficient. These waters are called “Outstanding National Resources Waters” and have been designated as unique or ecologically sensitive.

If an activity is going to be allowed to degrade or lower water quality (in situations where existing water quality is higher than that needed to maintain established beneficial uses), the Antidegradation Policy requires that proposed projects meet the criteria below:

The activity is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area.

Water quality is adequate to protect and fully maintain existing beneficial uses. (c) National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et. Seq.) established the National Flood Insurance Program, which is based on the minimal requirements for floodplain management and is designed to minimize flood damage within Special Flood Hazard Areas. FEMA is the agency that administers the National Flood Insurance Program. Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are defined as areas that have a one-percent chance of flooding within a given year, also referred to as the 100-year flood. Flood Insurance Rate Maps were developed to identify areas of flood hazards within a community. (2) State
(a) Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Water Code § 13000 et seq.) (Porter-Cologne Act) grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional boards (RWQCBs) power to protect surface water and groundwater quality and is the primary vehicle for implementing California’s responsibilities under the federal Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges of waste to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for its region. The Basin Plan must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State Water Policy. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for surface and groundwater in the region, and sets forth narrative and numeric water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. The Porter- Cologne Act also states that an RWQCB may include water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste within its regional plan. For this project, the applicable RWQCB is the Santa Ana Board (Region 8).

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-15
(b) California Toxics Rule
The California Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.38) is a USEPA-issued federal regulation that provides water quality criteria for potentially toxic constituents in California surface waters with designated uses related to human health or aquatic life. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a State court overturned the State’s water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. These federal criteria are legally applicable in the State of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the Clean Water Act.

The California Toxics Rule establishes two types of aquatic life criteria: (1) acute criteria represent the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time5 without harmful effects and (2) chronic criteria equal the highest concentration to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (four days) without deleterious effects. Due to the intermittent nature of storm water runoff (especially in southern California), the acute criteria are considered to be more applicable to storm water conditions than chronic criteria. (c) State Antidegradation Policy
State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (“Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining the High Quality of Waters of the State”, also known as the “Anti-degradation Policy”) restricts degradation of surface water and groundwater. In particular, Resolution 68-16 protects water bodies where existing quality is higher than necessary for the protection of beneficial uses. Under Resolution 68-16, whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the state that any change would be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality that is less than that prescribed in the policies. Any activity that produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements that would result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.
(d) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit The NPDES permit program is administered in the State of California by the RWQCBs, and was first established under the authority of the Clean Water Act to control water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that discharge pollutants into “Waters of the U.S.”. If discharges from industrial, municipal, and other facilities go directly to surface waters, those project applicants must obtain permits. An individual NPDES permit is specifically tailored to a facility. A general NPDES permit covers multiple facilities within a specific activity category such as construction activities. A general permit applies the same or similar conditions to all dischargers covered under the general permit. 5 The rule does not specify timeframe for “acute”. Standard practice would likely imply that any condition that is permanent or semipermanent is chronic—all else would be short-term.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-16
(i) General Construction Permit
The SWRCB has issued a statewide general NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for storm water discharges from construction sites. Under this General Construction Permit, discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by the General Construction Permit.

Each applicant under the General Construction Permit must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the RWQCB and ensure that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is prepared prior to grading. Terms of the SWPPP must be implemented during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the site during construction.

In 1999, the SWRCB issued and subsequently amended the General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ), which governs discharges from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of surface area. Again, on September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a General Construction Permit that (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ) substantially altered the approach taken to regulate construction discharges through (1) requiring the determination of risk levels posed by a project’s construction discharges to water quality and (2) establishing numerical water quality thresholds that trigger permit violations. These permit regulations took effect on July 1, 2010, but were challenged. Subsequent to the legal challenge, the SWRCB adopted an order 2010 and then another updated permit on July 17, 2012 (WQO-2012-0006-DWQ/NPDES CAS000002).
(ii) Municipal Storm Water Permitting (MS4 Permit)
The State’s Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from MS4s. MS4 Permits were issued in two phases. Phase I was initiated in 1990, under which the RWQCBs adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving more than 250,000 people) municipalities. As part of Phase II, the SWRCB adopted a General Permit for small MS4s (serving less than 100,000 people) and non-traditional small MS4s including governmental facilities such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes (WQ Order No. 2003-0005- DWQ).
(e) Groundwater Management
The Groundwater Management Act (Water Code §§ 10750-10755.4) was first introduced in 1992 as Assembly Bill 3030. It has since been amended by SB 1938 in 2002 and AB 359 in 2011. Generally, the Groundwater Management Act provides a systematic procedure for local agencies to develop Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs). The 2011 amendments to the Act require public agencies to prepare and implement GWPs that focus on identifying groundwater recharge areas.

In September 2014, Governor Brown signed a three-bill legislative package (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319) into law, collectively referred to as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of ground water supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention if necessary to protect the groundwater resource. The SGMA requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans. Once identified, the GSAs have the authority to require registration of groundwater wells, measure and manage extractions, require reports and assess fees, December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-17
request revisions of basin boundaries, including establishing new sub-basins. GSAs responsible for high- and medium-priority basins must adopt groundwater sustainability plans within five to seven years, depending on whether the basin is in critical overdraft. Agencies may adopt a single plan covering an entire basin or combine a number of plans created by multiple agencies. Preparation of groundwater sustainability plans is exempt from CEQA. Plans must include a physical description of the basin, including groundwater levels, groundwater quality, subsidence, information on groundwater-surface water interaction, data on historical and projected water demands and supplies, monitoring and management provisions, and a description of how the plan will affect other plans, including city and county general plans. Plans will be evaluated every five years.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) also has duties under the SGMA, including: designating basins as high, medium, low or very low priority (January 1, 2015); adopting regulations for boundary adjustments (January 1, 2016); adopting regulations for evaluating the adequacy of GSPs and GSA coordination agreements (June 1, 2016); publishing a report estimating water available for groundwater replenishment (December 31, 2016); and publishing groundwater sustainability BMPs (January 1, 2017). The project site is located in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. This groundwater basin has been designated as a medium priority basin by the DWR.6 The GSA for the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin is the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD).
(3) Regional
(a) Basin Plan
As indicated above, the project site is located within the Santa Ana RWQCB’s jurisdiction. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana River Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for water bodies in the region. Narrative water quality criteria contained in the Basin Plan cover a range of both organic and inorganic constituents for both surface and groundwater; the Santa Ana River Basin Plan prohibits the degradation of water quality in a manner that would adversely impact a water body’s designated beneficial uses. The Basin Plan incorporates applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.

For certain designated surface water bodies and groundwater management zones, specific numeric water quality objectives have been established for a range of constituents. These water quality criteria apply within receiving waters and do not apply directly to runoff. Within the project area, there are no water bodies (or groundwater management zones) for which numeric objectives have been established. However, there are water quality objectives that apply by the tributary rule. The Santa Ana RWQCB defines a beneficial use for surface waters in the region as “one of the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife.” Beneficial uses, along with specific water quality criteria, comprise water quality standards for surface (navigable) waters as defined by Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [USC] §1313). Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code §§13050 et seq.), these concepts are separately considered as beneficial uses and water quality objectives. Beneficial uses and water quality objectives are to be established for all “Waters of the State”, both surface and subsurface groundwater. 6 California Department of Water Resources Website, CASGEM Groundwater Basin Prioritization, Casgem Basin Summary, Upper Santa Ana Valley, dated May 30, 2014, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/pdfs/basin_prioritization/SRO%20206.pdf, accessed June 2015.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-18
There are 23 beneficial uses defined statewide; of these, 19 are recognized within the Santa Ana Region. One additional beneficial use—Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat—is unique to the Santa Ana Region, bringing the total number of beneficial uses recognized in the Santa Ana Region to 20. The 20 beneficial uses include the following: MUN: municipal and domestic supply; AGR: agricultural supply; IND: industrial service supply; PROC: industrial process supply; GWR: Groundwater Recharge; NAV: navigation; POW: hydropower generation; REC1: water contact recreation; REC2: noncontact water recreation; COMM: commercial and sport fishing; WARM: warm freshwater habitat; LWARM: limited warm freshwater habitat; COLD: cold freshwater habitat; BIOL: biological significance; WILD: wildlife habitat; RARE: rare, threatened, or endangered species; SPWN: spawning, reproduction, and development; MAR: marine habitat; SHEL: shellfish harvesting; EST: estuarine habitat. The beneficial uses identified for Temescal Creek (Reach 1) and the Santa Ana River (Reach 3) are listed in the Existing Conditions section above. (b) General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters Which Pose an Insignificant (de minimus) Threat to Water Quality (Dewatering Permit) The Santa Ana RWQCB issued Order No. R8-2003-0061 and Amendments to NPDES Permit No. CAG998001 (Dewatering Permit) to regulate the discharge of dewatering wastes from construction, subterranean seepage, and other similar types of discharges considered to have “de minimus” impacts on water quality within the jurisdictions covered by the permit. This permit was updated in March 2009 (by Order No. R8- 2009-0003, NPDES NP. CAG998001) and applies to projects located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, including the City of Corona. To obtain coverage under this permit, an applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and data establishing the chemical characteristics of the dewatering discharge. A standard monitoring and reporting program is included as part of the permit. For dewatering activities that are not covered by the General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements, and an individual NPDES permit must be obtained from the applicable RWQCB.
(c) Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Guidance Document This document is intended to provide guidelines for project-specific post-construction BMPs and for regional and sub-regional source control BMPs and structural BMPs to address management of urban runoff quantity and quality to protect receiving waters. The document identifies the BMPs, including design criteria for treatment control BMPs that may be applicable when considering any map or permit for which discretionary approval is sought. New development and significant redevelopment projects submitted since December 31, 2004, are required to submit a project-specific WQMP prior to the first discretionary project approval or permit. Project applicants may be required to submit a preliminary project-specific WQMP for discretionary project approval (such as land use entitlement). Project applicants are required to submit for review and approval a final project-specific WQMP that is in substantial conformance with the preliminary project- specific WQMP prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The new MS4 permit adopted on January 29, 2010 and amended on June 7, 2013, identifies new requirements for approval of WQMPs by local agencies.
(4) Local
(a) City of Corona Groundwater Management Plan
The City of Corona developed a Groundwater Management Plan in 2008 (GWMP) to support the management of a reliable and sustainable groundwater resource for the City. The GWMP follows the guidelines set forth by AB 3030, the California Department of Water Resources Groundwater Management December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-19
Act, which provides a systematic procedure for an existing local agency to develop a groundwater management plan. The GWMP allows the City of Corona to address issues of groundwater recharge and storage in order to effectively manage the local sub-basins and the City’s water supply. The GWMP area covers three groundwater sub-basins within the City’s water service area and sphere of influence. These three sub-basins, including the Temescal, Coldwater, and Bedford sub-basins, are located in western Riverside County in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Collectively, the analysis of these basins is used to describe the “state of the basins” with respect to groundwater use, water levels, quality, and storage. The GWMP identified the following objectives for the management and operations of the relevant basins:

Operate the groundwater basin in a sustainable manner for beneficial uses; Increase the reliability of water supply for basin users; Prevent substantial water level declines in Channel Aquifer; Protect groundwater quality in unconfined aquifers;
Maintain required outflow at Prado Dam; and
Monitor groundwater levels, quality, and storage.
(b) City of Corona General Plan
The City of Corona General Plan contains policies relevant to hydrology, drainage, groundwater resources, and surface water quality. Specifically, the relevant policies of the Infrastructure and Utilities Element and the Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan address impacts of development on the City’s storm drain system, surface water quality, flooding hazards, and City water supply sources including groundwater basins. The proposed project’s consistency with the applicable policies of the General Plan is discussed below under Consistency with Regulatory Framework. (c) City of Corona Municipal Code
The City of Corona Municipal Code (CMC) contains various requirements relative to stormwater management, including minimizing flooding, construction of and connection to City storm drains, and control pollutants in storm water runoff from development sites. The relevant regulations contained in the CMC are discussed individually below.
(i) Floodplain Management
Title 18, Floodplain Management, of the CMC is intended to protect people and property within the City from flooding and flood-related hazards. The purpose of CMC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:

1. Protect human life and health;

2. Minimize the expenditure of public funds for costly flood control projects;

3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-20

4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions;

5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;

6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;

7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and

8. Assure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions.
(ii) Storm Drains
Chapter 13.16, Storm Drains, of the CMC addresses the construction of and connection to the City’s storm drain system. Chapter 13.16 regulates diversions of stormwater flows from existing storm drains, prohibits off-site flow of irrigation runoff or other wastewater, and dictates the size and location of catch basins. (iii) Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls
Chapter 13.27, Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls, of the CMC regulates stormwater quality and discharges to the storm drain system. The purpose of Chapter 13.27 is to protect the future health, safety and general welfare of the City’s citizens by:

1. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable;

2. Regulating illicit connections and discharges to the storm drain system; and

3. Regulating non-storm water discharges to the storm drain system.

The enforcement of Chapter 13.27 is intended to protect and enhance the water quality of City watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC 1342 et seq.).

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
A Hydrology Study was prepared by KWC Engineers for the project. The purpose of the study was to hydrologically model the project site’s on-site and off-site tributary watersheds and to determine the existing and proposed peak runoffs and volumes in order to analyze stormwater measures. The hydrologic analysis was prepared using the Rational Method as specified in the Riverside County Hydrology Manual.

The Hydrology Study also approximates the peak storage required to mitigate any increased runoff due to development for the most critical storm and duration event using the Unit Hydrograph Method in accordance with the Riverside County Rational Method. The Hydrology Study also contains a Debris Basin Analysis for the undeveloped tributary watershed areas upstream of the site. The analysis was conducted using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-21
Water quality impacts were assessed by considering the types of pollutants and/or effects on water quality likely to be associated with construction and operation of the project, project design features to treat contaminants, and expected contaminant flows with project implementation. Project consistency with relevant regulatory permits/requirements, including BMPs and applicable plans, was evaluated to demonstrate how compliance would ensure that the project would not significantly degrade existing water quality.

Flooding impacts were addressed in consideration of applicable safety policies of the City’s General Plan Safety Element and the design requirements within the City’s Municipal Code. A determination was made as to whether such policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements would adequately address potential flooding hazards on the site.

Groundwater impacts were evaluated by estimating the domestic water demands of the proposed project, a portion of which is provided by local groundwater basins, relative to the safe yield of affected aquifers. b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of questions to assist in determining whether a proposed project would have a significant impact related to various environmental issues including hydrology and water quality. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to hydrology and water quality would occur if the project would result:

Threshold 1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-1 below);
Threshold 2: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-2 below);
Threshold 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-1 below); Threshold 4: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-3 below);
Threshold 5: Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-3 below);
Threshold 6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-1 below);

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-22
Threshold 7: Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other flood hazard delineation maps (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-4 below);
Threshold 8: Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-4 below);
Threshold 9: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-4 below);
Threshold 10: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-4 below); or Threshold 11: Comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a physical impact associated with hydrology and water quality (refer to Impact Statement 4.H-5 below).
c. Project Design Features
A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the County and City NPDES Stormwater Program requirements for stormwater management. The following Project Design Features (PDFs), which include various Best Management Practices (BMPs), would be incorporated into the project:

PDF HYD-1 The project will consist of 292 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet on 270.9 acres and the proposed development pattern will preserve approximately 96 acres of this area as natural open space areas in which no grading would occur and thus the existing vegetation and drainage patterns will be protected.

PDF HYD-2 Approximately 21.38 acres of the site will be acquired by the RCTC/City of Corona for the construction of the Westerly Extension of Foothill Parkway and Mabey Canyon Debris Basin.

Drainage and water quality for these areas will be coordinated with the development plans for the project.

PDF HYD-3 The Applicant will seek coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. In accordance with the requirements of the permit, the Applicant will implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will specify BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction that will address both runoff conditions and potential pollution. BMPs could include, but not be limited to, such measures as water bars, silt fences, staked straw bales, wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrances and exits, and street sweeping and vacuuming.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-23
PDF HYD-4 The project will install a system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping so that off-site flows will by-pass the site and will not be co-mingled with development runoff which will be treated at the designated BMP treatment areas.

PDF HYD-5 The site is divided into five tributary areas, or Drainage Management Areas (DMAs), which are designated as Basins A, B, C, D, and E. The Applicant will install biotreatment BMPs (i.e., extended detention basins) within each DMA as approved by the City Department of Public Works.

PDF HYD-6 The onsite storm drain system will be owned by the City of Corona and maintained by the Public Works Department, except for the WQMP basins and pipes leading to and from the WQMP basins, which will be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association. An Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms (O&M) will be provided with the Final WQMP and will agreed to by the Applicant and the City of Corona to ensure perpetual maintenance of the BMPs.

PDF HYD-7 Project landscaping will comply with applicable landscaping requirements specified in Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of the CMC. The proposed landscape design will consist of moderately drought-tolerant sustainable plantings and trees and the irrigation system will utilize weather-based, water-conserving irrigation technology and management.

Reclaimed water will be used for non-potable water demands. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Water Quality
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Threshold 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold 6: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade 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.
(a) Construction
(i) Water Contaminants
Construction activities would include the use of heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as fuels, oils, grease, solvents and paints that would be stored in limited quantities on-site. In the absence of

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-24
proper controls, these construction activities could result in accidental spills or disposal of potentially harmful materials used during construction that could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater.

However, the project would be subject to existing regulations associated with the protection of water quality.

The applicable WDRs, the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction activities, and SWPPP (with associated BMPs) are considered protective of water quality during construction and would, therefore, prevent a substantial violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff during construction of the project. These existing regulations, programs, and policies would ensure that the potential for discharge of polluted stormwater from construction sites to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters and water quality standards, where applicable, would not be substantial. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that construction of the project would not result in the exceedance of water quality standards during construction, including TMDL limits applicable to Temescal Creek and Santa Ana River. Therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
(ii) Erosion and Sedimentation
During construction, the project site would be subject to ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation and grading, foundation and infrastructure construction, the installation of utilities). These activities would expose soils for a limited time, allowing for possible erosion and sediments to enter into runoff.

Although project development has the potential to result in the erosion of soils, this potential would be reduced through standard erosion controls imposed during site preparation and grading activities. For instance, the project would be subject to existing regulations associated with the protection of water quality.

Specifically, construction activities would be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the General Construction NPDES Permit. In accordance with the requirements of the permit, the Project would implement a SWPPP, which as indicated in PDF HYD-3 would specify BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction that would address both runoff conditions and potential pollution. BMPs could include, but not be limited to, the use of or implementation of water bars, silt fences, staked straw bales, wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrances and exits, and street sweeping and vacuuming. Lastly, the project would implement standard erosion control construction practices as required by the City to reduce the potential for erosion during construction. With the implementation of standard erosion control measures, impacts with respect to erosion and sedimentation would be less than significant. (b) Operation
(i) Pollutant Discharges
Stormwater discharge is generated by rainfall that runs off the land and impervious surfaces such as paved streets, driveways, patios, and rooftops. Stormwater discharge may include pollutants of concern, which are those that are expected to be generated by the project and that could impact stormwater. During operation of the project, pollutants of concern within runoff may include, but are not limited to, bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, and oil and grease.

These pollutants of concern are typical in hillside development and residential subdivisions. The project priority Pollutants of Concern are bacterial indicators and metals as these are the listed water quality impairments for the Temescal Creek and Santa Ana River.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-25
This runoff can flow directly into storm drains and continue through pipes until it is released, untreated, into Temescal Creek and the Santa Ana River. Untreated stormwater runoff degrades water quality in surface waters and groundwater and can affect drinking water, human health, and plant and animal habitats. The project’s design features, including operational BMPs, listed under the Project Design Features section above would be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable Municipal NPDES Permit and City WQMP requirements to ensure less than significant water quality impacts. The Preliminary WQMP has been prepared for the project in accordance with City of Corona WQMP requirements, which includes both source control and treatment control BMPs, as well as site design BMPs.

Based on the City’s WQMP requirements, retention BMPs must be designed to retain, on-site, (infiltrate, harvest and use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 85 percent average annual capture efficiency.

According to the Model WQMP, if it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention and/or biotreatment provided on-site or at a sub-regional/regional scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on-site or off-site prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits, if appropriate. The City of Corona may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within the project WQMP is taking place at the project site.

The HOA would retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they would be made available to the City upon request. All records would be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. (ii) Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
In addition to the direct introduction of pollutants to stormwater flows, impacts to water quality can also result from changes to the hydrologic regime including: (1) increased runoff volume and velocity; (2) reduced infiltration; (3) increased flow frequency, duration, and peaks; (4) faster time to reach peak flow; or (5) other water quality degradation. Under certain circumstances, changes could also result in the reduction in the amount of available sediment for transport (i.e., storm flows could fill this sediment-carrying capacity by eroding the downstream channel). These changes have the potential to permanently impact downstream channels and habitat integrity. A change to the hydrologic regime of a development project site would be considered a hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) if the change would have a significant impact on downstream erosion compared to the pre-development condition or have significant impacts on stream habitat, alone or as part of a cumulative impact from development in the watershed. A project-specific WQMP must address the issue of HCOCs unless one of the following exceptions apply to the project:

HCOC Exemption 1: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The Co- Permittee has the discretion to require a Project-Specific WQMP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger common plans of development.

HCOC Exemption 2: The volume and time of concentration of storm water runoff for the post- development condition is not significantly different from the pre-development condition for a 2-year return frequency storm (a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant) using one of the following methods to calculate:
o Riverside County Hydrology Manual

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-26
o Technical Release 55 (TR-55): Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS 1986), or derivatives thereof, such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method o Other methods acceptable to the Co-Permittee
HCOC Exemption 3: All downstream conveyance channels to an adequate sump (for example, Prado Dam, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Santa Ana River, or other lake, reservoir or naturally erosion resistant feature) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensitive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Sensitivity Maps.

The runoff from the proposed project site (WQMP Areas A, B, C, and E) would discharge directly to the City/County maintained MS4 Storm Drain System and the Mabey Canyon Debris Basin, which drains to the Santa Ana River Reach 3. These facilities have been identified by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to be within a watershed not susceptible to HCOC according to the HCOC Applicability Map. As such, a portion of the proposed project would meet HCOC Exemption 3 above, and therefore, an analysis of HCOCs is not required for WQMP Areas A, B, C, and E.

However, the runoff from proposed WQMP drainage areas D1, D2, and D3 would not fall into HCOC Exemption 3 criteria, and therefore the project is required to mitigate the HCOC. As such, the project would include the installation of a series of privately maintained Detention Basins within the site to mitigate the HCOC requirements as well as the increase in runoff that would occur from the development of the site. The Hydrology Study indicates that for WQMP Area D1, D2, and D3, the on-site Detention Basin located upstream of the discharge point would mitigate the HCOC runoff and velocity for this drainage area. (iii) Conclusion
Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, as well as implementation of the project design features and BMPs identified in the WQMP, would ensure that operation of the project would not adversely affect the receiving waters of Temescal Creek or the Santa Ana River, result in the violation of water quality standards, and minimize the potential for contributing sources of polluted runoff. Based on the above, water quality impacts would be less than significant.
(2) Groundwater Resources
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
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 lowering of the local groundwater table level. As such, impacts to groundwater resources would be less than significant.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-27
The project would result in the development of 292 single-family residences on the approximately 270.9- acre site within an undeveloped hillside area to the south/southwest of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Approximately 21.38 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be used as right-of-way for the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Approximately 96 acres of the 270.9-acre project site would not be graded and thus would remain as natural open space. The proposed project would not involve any groundwater extraction or other activities that could result in direct withdrawal or depletion of groundwater supplies. As noted above, a portion of the City’s water supply is provided by groundwater from local aquifers, and as such the project would increase demands on the City’s groundwater basins. However, as discussed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, buildout of the project would not result in any adverse impacts to the City’s water supplies, including groundwater resources. The City is able to meet the water demands of the proposed project in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2035. As the proposed project would not adversely affect groundwater resources and water demand would not exceed water supplies, impacts to groundwater resources would be less than significant. (3) Hydrology and Drainage
Threshold 4: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? Threshold 5: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
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. The project would result in an increase in runoff as a result of the development of an undeveloped hillside area. The project would add approximately 40 acres of impervious area in the form of streets, rooftops, driveways, and sidewalks. Runoff from rooftops would be designed to drain into pervious landscape areas within each residential lot prior to discharge onto streets or connection to the proposed on-site storm drain systems. The amount of impervious surfaces would represent about 15 percent of the site or about four percent of the total tributary area. Approximately 96 acres of the 270.9-acre project site would not be graded and would be set aside as natural open space. However, because the development of the site would introduce a greater percentage of impervious surfaces, the post-development flow volumes that would be generated on site would be higher than the pre-development flows without an adequate drainage system and a well-planned post-construction WQMP which would include addressing any hydrologic conditions of concern that could result from the proposed project.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-28
As indicated above and as evaluated in the Hydrology Study, the project site is divided into four tributary areas, or Drainage Management Areas (DMAs), as shown in Figure 4.H-4, Proposed Site Hydrology, which are designated as Basins A, B, C, and D. Table 4.H-2, Comparison of Existing and Proposed Peak Flows, provides a comparison between the existing condition and proposed condition Rational Method 10 and 100 Year Hydrology results. Under existing conditions, as discussed above, the site has a total drainage area of approximately 419.7 acres and a total flow rate of 976.98 cfs in the 100-year event and 594.92 cfs in the 10- year event. As can be seen in Table 4.H-2, the proposed condition would generate approximately 996.8 cfs in the 100-year event and 614.2 in the 10-year event, which would be an increase of about 19.86 cfs in the 100- year event and 19.25 cfs in the 10-year event. While there would be an increase in the proposed condition, the proposed discharge from the site would be within three percent of the existing discharge. The difference in peak flow would be mitigated in the proposed detention basins. Area A would include the entire northern portion of the site; however, only a portion of Area A in the existing condition drains towards Mabey Canyon, which is the proposed outlet. Under the proposed condition a flow increase of 24.54 cfs in the 100-year event and 15.63 cfs in the 10-year event would result. The Hydrology Study indicates that the flow increase is inconsequential to the flow in Mabey Canyon and detention for Area A would not be required.7 The project would result in the installation of an on-site storm drain system that would be owned by the City of Corona and maintained by the City of Corona Public Works Department, except for the WQMP basins and pipes leading to and from the WQMP basins, which would be maintained by the HOA. The Hydrology Study provides preliminary estimated sizes and locations for the storm drain facilities, which would be refined in the design review and final engineering process. The system would be designed in accordance with City standards. Mainline pipe sizes would be based on the 100-year storm event. Catch basins and storm drain laterals would be placed at locations to keep the 10-year flow below the top of the curb and the 100-year flow below the right-of-way. The on-site street capacities would be sufficient to provide the level of protection required by Riverside County. Since the storm drain mainline pipes would be sized for the 100- year storm event, the street would contain local flows until catch basins intercept the 100-year flow. 7 Preliminary Drainage Report, KWC Engineers, January 21, 2013, page 7.

Table 4.H-2
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Peak Flows
Area
Existing
Q10 (cfs)
Proposed
Q10 (cfs)
Difference Q10
(Prop-Exist)
Existing
Q100 (cfs)
Proposed
Q100 (cfs)
Difference Q100
(Prop-Exist)
A 15.71 31.34 15.63 25.22 49.76 24.54
B 74.19 111.99 37.80 125.48 180.87 55.39
C 412.19 368.21 -43.98 675.81 600.73 -75.08
D 80.81 102.63 21.82 131.32 165.48 34.16
Total 594.92 614.17 19.25 976.98 996.84 19.86
Source: KWC Engineers, Preliminary Drainage Report, January 2014 Proposed Site Hydrology FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-4
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. 0 750 Feet N

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-30
This page intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-31
The project proposes a detention basin for each drainage area. A combination WQMP and detention basin is proposed for drainage area A. However, for drainage areas A, B, C, and D separate WQMP and detention basins are proposed. More specifically, as illustrated in Figure 4.H-5, Preliminary WQMP Site Plan, the WQMP establishes five DMAs, which are designated as Basins A, B, C, D1, D2, D3, and E. Each DMA tributary area for the proposed project would drain into an extended detention basin, the locations of which are illustrated in Figure 4.H-5. Area A, which would have 45 lots, would drain towards the Mabey Canyon detention basin. Two extended detention basins would be located in the southern portion of Area A. Area B, a larger area would drain through a water quality basin and detention basin prior to entering a storm drain proposed as part of the Foothill Extension project which would outlet into the same canyon as in the existing conditions (into an engineered open space west of Cape Drive, into a concrete trapezoidal channel flowing towards Border Avenue). Area C, a smaller area would drain into an extension of the concrete channel constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway project. Upstream natural canyons would flow into debris basins and on-site flows would be conveyed via a storm drain pipe system into a water quality basin prior to discharging into the canyon downstream of the project grading limits. Storm drain pipes are proposed within the project site, per the project WQMP, to collect on-site development runoff which would be treated at strategically located WQMP basins within the project site.

As shown in Figure 4.H-6, Proposed Storm Drain Facilities, the proposed project would outlet at four (4) locations. Outlet Structure No. 1 and No. 2 would be located in the northern portion of the development, north of Mabey Canyon. Outlet Structure No. 3 would be located just west of the Foothill Parkway Extension and Outlet Structure No. 4 would be located in Area C of the subdivision. Area C would outlet into an existing canyon bottom; however, the remaining areas would connect directly to existing storm drains or future storm drain pipes that would be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project. For Area C, a concrete impact basin energy dissipator and rip-rap pad would be designed as part of the final engineering for the project in accordance with City standards. The outlet velocity would be at or below the existing condition or to a non-erosive velocity. A mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure HYD-1, is recommended to ensure the implementation of the requirement.

In addition, four flow-by basins would be installed on the site on the westernmost portion of the subdivision in the central and southern portion of the site. In addition, the Hydrology Study includes a debris basin analysis, which determines the debris yield for the undeveloped tributary watershed areas upstream of the proposed project. Based on the debris bulking analysis, each on-site debris basin has been sized to accommodate the anticipated flows within each respective tributary area. Thus, the system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping would ensure that off-site flows would by-pass the site and would not be co-mingled with development runoff which needs to be treated at the proposed designated BMP treatment areas.

As such, despite the increase in runoff that would result from the development of the site, with the proposed drainage system the pre- and post-developed conditions would be met at the outlet of the project. The post- project site would not result in significant hydrology impacts such that flooding would occur on- or off-site.

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

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-32
(4) Flood Hazards
Threshold 7: Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other flood hazard delineation maps? Threshold 8: Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Threshold 9: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Threshold 10:Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Impact 4.H-4 Implementation of the project would not expose people and structures to flood hazards since residential pad elevation would be approximately 25 feet higher than the streambed flowline. In addition, the 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.

As indicated above, the project site is located outside the FIRM study limits and currently within an unmapped Zone X area. The Project would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) through FEMA. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall secure FEMA’s approval for the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) which may impact the Mabey Canyon channel. The proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project proposes to expand regional storm water facilities, including the Mabey Canyon Debris Basin, prior to the construction of the proposed Skyline Heights project. The Skyline Heights project would include grading of the area along the northerly channel bank of Mabey Canyon streambed to create residential lots adjacent to the channel. The lowest proposed residential pad elevation would be approximately 25 feet higher than the streambed flowline. Given the existing width and configuration of the Mabey Canyon drainage channel, and the elevation of the proposed residential pads throughout the site, the potential for flooding in the development would not be likely to occur.

As shown in Figure 5.2-1 of the City’s General Plan Technical Background Report, the project site is not located within an area subject to inundation from failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, no adverse impacts related to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam would occur. Lastly, the project site is located approximately 24 miles inland from the ocean and no other large bodies of water exist in proximity to the project site. Thus, there would be no potential for flooding from seiche effects or tsunamis, or potential mudflow hazards, associated with a seismic event. No impacts would occur in this regard. (5) Consistency with Regulatory Framework
Threshold 11: 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 a physical impact associated with hydrology and water quality?
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.

Preliminary WQMP Site Plan FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-5
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. 0 120 Feet N
Proposed Storm Drain Facili es FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.H-6
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014. 0 700 Feet N
N.A.P
December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-35
(a) Corona General Plan
As discussed above, the project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality. The City of Corona General Plan contains goals and policies related to hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality. As shown in Table 4.H-3, General Plan Consistency Analysis, the project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, and therefore impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (b) Corona Municipal Code
The project site, as discussed above, is not located within the boundaries of a designated 100-year flood plain. However, to the extent required by the City, the proposed project would comply with Title 18, Floodplain Management, of the CMC, which is intended to protect people and property within the City from flooding and flood-related hazards. Additionally, the proposed project would involve the construction of new storm drains on-site in order to ensure the project-related stormwater flows do not exceed the capacity of storm drains serving the area (see discussion above). As such, the proposed project would comply with Chapter 13.16, Storm Drains, of the CMC, which addresses the construction of and connection to the City’s storm drain system and also regulates diversions of stormwater flows from existing storm drains, prohibits off-site flow of irrigation runoff or other wastewater, and dictates the size and location of catch basins. As required by Chapter 13.27, Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls, of the CMC, the proposed project would implement the project-specific WQMP in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality.

Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable requirements of the CMC, and as such impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulatively, development within the watershed would result in an increase in impervious surfaces in addition to changes in land use and associated pollutant runoff characteristics. Increased impervious surfaces are likely to alter existing hydrology and increase potential pollutant loads. However, all development and future development in the City and throughout the Santa Ana RWQCB must comply with all requirements of and obtain NPDES permits as applicable. Although continued growth is anticipated to occur in the City and surrounding areas, new development and significant redevelopment would have to minimize their individual impacts to water quality and pollutant transport through implementation of BMPs. Because these requirements would be imposed on all other developments, it is anticipated that each development would be required to mitigate its own specific impact on water quality and drainage. Therefore, if all other developments are required to mitigate for impacts to water quality, a less than significant cumulative impact to water quality would occur.

While cumulative development in the City and region would increase the demand for water, groundwater recharge policies and practices implemented by the City and other local agencies would ensure groundwater supplies are maintained at appropriate levels. Other regulatory mechanisms such as the water management plan conservation policies (such as education and outreach to residents and business owners) further ensure that groundwater levels are maintained at the appropriate levels. As such, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-36 Table 4.H-3
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Consistency
Infrastructure and Public Services – Storm Drainage
Policy 7.6.6 – Require new development to prepare
hydrologic studies to assess storm runoff impacts on
the local and sub-regional storm drainage systems,
and, if warranted, require new development to
provide adequate drainage facilities and to mitigate
increases in stormwater flows and/or cumulative
increases in regional flows. Developers of proposed
projects are to submit a final drainage plan for the
City Engineer's review and approval.

Consistent. Per City requirement, a preliminary Hydrology Study and a preliminary WQMP were prepared for the project. The City engineer will review and comment on the WQMP until an approval is granted for the project. The studies indicate the types of features to be employed and the resulting flows to be generated off-site. Using a system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping, off-site flows would by-pass the site and would not be co-mingled with development runoff which would be treated at the proposed designated BMP treatment areas. In addition, while the project would increase stormwater flows, the pre- and post-development conditions would be met at the outlet of the project. The project would be consistent with this policy.

Goal 7.7 – Ensure that urban runoff from existing
and new development does not degrade the quality
of the City’s surface waters, groundwater system,
and other sensitive environmental areas.

Consistent. The proposed project would be designed to avoid water quality impacts in accordance with the requirements within the WQMP and SWPPP for project construction and operation. See Policies 7.6.6 and 7.7.7.

Policy 7.7.1 – Ensure that new development does
not degrade surface waters or the groundwater
system.

Consistent. The proposed project would be designed to avoid water quality impacts in accordance with the requirements within the WQMP and SWPPP for project construction and operation. See Policies 7.6.6 and 7.7.7.

Policy 7.7.2 – Reduce pollutant loading through
passive treatment systems such as vegetated filter
strips, grass swales, and infiltration/sedimentation
areas in suitable open space areas, overland flow
channels and landscaping adjacent to parking lots
and streets.

Consistent. The project would incorporate sustainable design principles, including water-wise planting and irrigation; water quality and stormwater best management practices, extended detention basins, and on-site biotreatment. The project would also include approximately 96 acres of ungraded natural open space within the 270.9-acre project site. Therefore, the project would reduce pollutant loading through passive treatment systems appropriate to the site and the nature of the development. The project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 7.7.3 – In new developments, minimize
impervious areas that are directly connected to
piped or channelized drainage systems.

Consistent. The proposed project would be designed to avoid water quality impacts in accordance with the requirements in the SWPPP and WQMP for project construction and operation. See Policies 7.6.6 and 7.7.7.

Policy 7.7.5 – Require that development projects
consider the appropriateness of the channelization
of storm water runoff to facilitate its possible
capture and re-use for on-site irrigation and other
purposes.

Consistent. The proposed project would be designed to avoid water quality impacts in accordance with the requirements within the WQMP and SWPPP for project construction and operation. See Policies 7.6.6 and 7.7.7. The project would use reclaimed water for non- portable water demand and would install moderately drought-tolerant sustainable plantings and trees and the irrigation system would utilize weather-based, water-conserving irrigation technology and management. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the intent of this December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 4.H-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-37 Goals and Policies Consistency
policy.

Policy 7.7.7 – Require developers to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) prior to moving
construction equipment onto a development site.

The NPDES permit shall be retained at the
construction site throughout the construction
period, and a copy shall be filed with the City
Engineer.

Consistent. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more, or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development or sale, must obtain the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity. The permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must list the BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and information regarding the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if the BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body on the 303(d) list for sediment. The proposed project would comply with all SWRCB and City requirements per the City’s NPDES permit. The project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 7.7.8 – During construction projects, ensure
compliance with all the terms and conditions
outlined as part of the NPDES permit, including the
implementation of the latest BMPs and a
determination of need for any additional Water
Quality Management Plans to reduce pollutants and
urban runoff flows to the maximum extent practical.

Consistent. See Policy 7.7.7.

Policy 7.7.9 – Require that new developments
employ the most efficient drainage technology to
control drainage and minimize damage to
environmentally sensitive areas.

Consistent. See Policies 7.6.6 and 7.7.7.

Environmental Resources - Hydrological Resources
Policy 10.1.2 – Conduct construction activities to
minimize adverse impacts on water resources
through the use of Best Management Practices, as
established and updated from time to time, by the
City of Corona.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local requirements to reduce flooding impacts. Furthermore, the parcel map for the project, which would be reviewed and approved by the City engineer, would comply with all recommendations stated therein to reduce impacts related to flooding hazards. The project would be designed to connect to the City’s storm drain system and direct water safely off and through the project site. The project would be consistent with this policy.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
Table 4.H-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-38 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 10.1.3 – In the event that previously unknown soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during construction, suspend
construction and implement appropriate health and
safety procedures. Where site contamination is
identified, implement an appropriate remediation
strategy that is approved by the City and DTSC.

Consistent. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix H and Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). As part of the ESA, environmental agency databases that log known hazardous site conditions were reviewed to ascertain whether the site or any adjacent properties were listed on such federal, state, or local databases. The site was not identified on any of the regulatory databases searched and no adjoining properties were identified on the databases. In addition, the site and adjoining properties were not identified on the Registered Storage Tank or on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Databases. No Brownfield listings were identified within a one-half mile radius of the site. The project would be required to comply with all recommendations for hazardous substances removal if encountered on-site. Thus, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 10.1.4 – Prohibit the discharge of toxins,
debris, refuse, and other pollution into
watercourses, other drainages and groundwater
basins.

Consistent. The project would result in the development of 292 single-family residences. A HOA would be formed and would be responsible for the maintenance of the WQMP basins and pipes leading to and from the WQMP basins. In addition, educational materials would be provided to residents regarding the detention basins and stormwater pollution prevention information regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses, such as pesticides, household cleaning supplies, paints, etc. Landscaping would be designed to minimize irrigation, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Project landscaping must comply with the applicable landscaping requirements specified in Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of the CMC. Therefore, no significant impacts regarding water quality would occur and the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 10.2.4 – Require the use of water and energy
conservation features and materials in the design and
construction of all public buildings, projects, and site development while encouraging their use citywide.

Consistent. The project would install water- and energy-efficient appliances to reduce water demand and energy output. In addition, project landscaping must comply with the applicable landscaping requirements specified in Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan of the CMC. The proposed landscape design would incorporate water conservation measures including water- conserving planting, efficient irrigation systems, and water-conserving fixtures. Therefore, the project would comply with this policy.

Policy 10.2.5 – Require the use of reclaimed water in
common areas and landscape treatments for all
proposed development.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, a new 12- inch Zone 3 reclaimed water line is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements and would be located in Foothill Parkway from Chase Drive to Serfas Club Drive and in Chase Drive from Foothill Parkway to Skyline Drive. This reclaimed water line is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, reclaimed water would be available to the site. Reclaimed water service would be utilized at December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 4.H-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-39 Goals and Policies Consistency
the project site for irrigation purposes. Therefore, the project would comply with this policy.

Policy 10.3.2 – Incorporate natural drainage systems
into developments where appropriate and feasible.

Consistent. The project site is currently undeveloped and in its natural state. Natural drainage courses currently exist on the project site. The proposed project would, however, incorporate a storm drain system, including biotreatment (i.e., extended detention basins) in order to capture and treat on-site stormwater flows. The pre- and post-developed conditions would be met at the outlet of the project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 10.3.3 – Retain storm water at or near the site
of generation for percolation into the groundwater to
conserve it for future uses and to mitigate adjacent
flooding.

Consistent. Refer to Policy 10.3.2. The proposed project would incorporate biotreatment features on the project site in order to retain stormwater flows and minimize flooding potential both on- and off-site.

Environmental Hazards and Public Safety – Flooding Hazards Goal 11.2 – Reduce the potential risk of flood
hazards to community property and human life.

Consistent. The proposed project would be partially located within the 500-year floodplain.

The proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local requirements to reduce flooding impacts. In addition, the lowest proposed residential pad elevation would be approximately 25 feet higher than the streambed flowline. The project would be designed to connect to the City’s storm drain system and direct water safely off and through the project site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this goal.

Policy 11.2.2 – Require that all new development
incorporate sufficient measures to mitigate flood
hazards including the design of onsite drainage
systems linking with Citywide storm drainage,
gradation of the site so that runoff does not impact
adjacent properties or structures on the site, and
elevation of the structures above any flooding
elevation.

Consistent. See Goal 11.2.

Policy 11.2.8 – Require that all new stormwater
drainage facilities be constructed and managed in
accordance with City and Riverside County design
specifications.

Consistent. All proposed stormwater facilities on the site would be constructed and managed in accordance with all applicable City and County design requirements. A Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report would be conducted to determine the proposed hydraulic grade lines throughout the storm drain system and final detention basin sizing. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report would be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
Table 4.H-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-40 Goals and Policies Consistency
Policy 11.2.11 – Require stormwater detention
basins, where appropriate, to reduce the potential
risk of flood hazards. The location, design, and
operational practices of the detention basins shall be
in conformity with applicable Federal, State, County,
and City environmental codes and regulations.

Consistent. Refer to Policy 10.3.3 and Policy 11.2.8 above.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

December 2015 4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-41

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
The project would comply with applicable regulations that would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality to less than significant. However, the following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure compliance:

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.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With the implementation of project design features and the recommended mitigation measure, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

4.H. Hydrology and Water Quality December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.H-42
This page intentionally blank.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING

INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR describes the existing environmental and regulatory setting for land use and planning, analyzes potential impacts on land use and planning that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and identifies the significance of those impacts. The analysis is also based on the following applicable plans and policies: The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Compass Blueprint Growth Vision; the City of Corona’s General Plan (adopted March 17, 2004, with latest updates in 2008), and applicable Municipal Code sections.

Land use and planning compatibility issues concern the physical compatibility of the land uses of the proposed project with adjacent or surrounding land uses as well as a proposed project’s consistency with the plans and policies of the agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over the project. This analysis describes existing land uses that could be affected by the proposed project and the proposed project’s compliance with relevant land use plans, policies, and ordinances of the City of Corona as well as regional planning agencies. The land use analysis addresses issues pertaining to the potential for the creation of physical incompatibilities between the proposed project and adjacent land uses or activities and determines whether any identified incompatibilities would result in physical impacts on the environment.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Corona is located approximately 45 miles southeast of Los Angeles in western Riverside County.

The City limits encompass 39.2 square miles.1 The City of Corona contains a broad diversity of uses including housing, schools, parks, libraries, religious facilities, civic, retail, industrial, offices, and open space.

The majority of the City (67 percent) is developed for housing, public, parks and open space uses and approximately 17 percent of the City is undeveloped.2
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Project Site
The project site is located within unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona Sphere of Influence (SOI). As shown in Figure 2-1, Regional and Vicinity Map, in Chapter 2 of this EIR, the site is located 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. As shown in Figure 2-5, West Sphere of 1 Source: City of Corona website; available: http://discovercorona.com/About-Corona.aspx 2 Source: City of Corona General Plan, adopted March 17, 2004, page 19.

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-2
Influence County of Riverside Zoning, in Chapter 2 of this EIR, the most of the SOI is zoned Rural Residential (0.2 – 0.5 dwelling units per acre) under the County of Riverside Zoning Code. A smaller section to the south of the current Trudy Way terminus is zoned A-1-10 (Light Agriculture). (2) Surrounding Uses
Figure 2-2, Aerial Photo of the Project Site and Surrounding Uses, in Chapter 2 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 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). It is currently undeveloped. 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 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.
b. Regulatory Framework
The following discussion identifies and describes the regulatory plans, policies, and ordinances that would be applicable to development at the site of the proposed project. Specific provisions of those documents that pertain to the project and address land use and planning issues are listed in the Impact Analysis section below and evaluated for consistency with the Project Design Features (also described below). (1) State Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 Annexation is the means by which an existing city extends its corporate boundaries. The Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code §56000, et seq.) is the framework within which December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-3
proposed city annexations, incorporations, consolidations, and special district formations are considered.

This law establishes a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county, empowering it to review, approve or deny proposals for boundary changes and incorporations for cities, counties, and special districts.

In 2000, the Legislature passed AB 2838 (Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000) making the broadest and most significant set of sweeping changes to local government reorganization law since the creation of LAFCOs. In addition to renaming the act the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), AB 2838 affirmed and strengthened the role of LAFCOs in helping shape the future physical and economic growth and development of the State, including, once again, the role of LAFCOs in annexation proceedings.

AB 2838 (Hertzberg, 2000), recognizes and affirms the important role that LAFCOs play in California in serving as an arm of the State, not only in the oversight of local government boundaries, but in evaluating and guiding the efficient, cost-effective, and reliable delivery of municipal services to California’s citizenry.

AB 2838 expanded the powers and duties of LAFCOs, in its decision-making role in government organization changes, and its examination and guidance of municipal service location and extension timing. This law establishes a LAFCO in each county, empowering it to review, approve, or deny proposals for boundary changes and incorporations/formations for cities, counties, and special districts. In granting these powers, the state has occupied the field of annexation law to the exclusion of local legislation. Therefore, a city or county cannot take actions that frustrate or conflict with state annexation procedures. For this reason, a city cannot adopt a local ordinance that would allow city voters to pass sole judgment on proposed annexation proceedings.

LAFCOs are composed of elected officials from the county and local cities, and a member of the general public. As of 2011, 29 of the 58 LAFCOs also have special district representation. In addition, some LAFCOs have special membership pursuant to the CKH Act. Each LAFCO operates independently of the state.

However, it is expected to act within a set of state-mandated parameters encouraging "planned, well- ordered, efficient urban development patterns," the preservation of open-space lands, and the discouragement of urban sprawl. The Legislature has taken care to guide the actions of the LAFCOs by providing statewide policies and priorities for the consideration of annexations (Gov. Code § 56844), and by establishing criteria for the delineation of spheres of influence (Gov. Code § 56425).

State Law does not mandate that annexations conform to local general plans beyond requiring that the LAFCO consider "consistency with the city or county general and specific plans" (Section 56841(g)).

Nonetheless, the statutes contain numerous references that attempt to link local land use and open-space policies to the annexation process (Sections 56300, 56375, 56377, 56425, and 56841). Accordingly, the Commission is expected to attempt to harmonize local planning policies with the intent of the State legislation. Where there is a clear conflict, such as incompatibility between city and county general plans, the State law would prevail.

The factors that the LAFCO must consider in reviewing annexation proposals include, but are not limited to, the following (Gov. Code § 56841):

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-4

1. Population, population density, land area and use, per capita assessed valuation, topography, natural boundaries, drainage basins, proximity to populated areas, and the likelihood of significant growth during the next ten years.

2. Need for organized community services, present cost and adequacy of government services and controls, probable future needs, probable effect of the annexation and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and vicinity.

3. The effect of the proposed annexation and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local government structure of the county.

4. Conformity of the proposal and its effects with LAFCO policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development and with state policies and priorities in conversion of open- space lands to other uses.

5. Effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve in open-space use.

6. Clarity of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.

7. Consistency with appropriate city or county general and specific plans.

8. The sphere of influence of any agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed.

9. The comments of any affected agency.

Under Government Code Section 56375(a), a LAFCO is required to approve a city's request to annex land adjacent to its borders when the commission finds that either of the following circumstances exist:

1. The land is substantially surrounded by the city or the Pacific Ocean, is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land, is designated for urban growth on the city's general plan, and is not within the sphere of influence of another city.

2. The land is located within an urban service area designated by the LAFCO, is not prime agricultural land, and is designated for urban growth on the city's general plan.

Both of these conditions require review of the annexing city's general plan by the LAFCO. A general plan which reflects the proposed annexation improves the chances that the annexation will be approved. (2) Regional
(a) Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the designated regional planning agency for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. Within these counties are 16 subregions or Council of Governments (COG).

The project site is within the Western Riverside COG, which includes 17 cities and the County of Riverside.

December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-5
SCAG is a joint powers agency with responsibilities pertaining to regional issues. SCAG’s mandated responsibilities include developing plans and policies with respect to the region’s population growth, transportation programs, air quality, housing, and economic development. (i) 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan
As part of its planning obligations, SCAG prepared the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The 2008 RCP was accepted by SCAG for use as an advisory document that may be voluntarily used by local jurisdictions when developing local plans and addressing local issues of regional significance. The RCP addresses issues related to future growth and provides a means for assessing the potential impact of individual development projects within a regional context. Local Governments are asked to consider the RCP’s recommendations in the preparation of General Plan updates, municipal code amendments, design guidelines, incentive programs and other actions. The applicable goals of the RCP relevant to land use and an analysis of the project’s consistency with these goals and policies are provided below under the subheading Analysis of Project Impacts.

The RCP is also closely linked to, and serves as a basis for the preparation of, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision (2 % strategy) program. (ii) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In April 2012, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2012 - 2035 Regional Transportation Plan – Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS presents the transportation vision for the region through the year 2035 and provides a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s transportation and related challenges. Also, the RTP/SCS contains baseline socioeconomic projections that are used as the basis for SCAG’s transportation planning and the provision of services by other regional agencies. The RTP/SCS includes goals and policies that pertain to economic development, mobility, accessibility, travel safety, productivity of the transportation system, protection of the environment and health through improved air quality, energy efficiency, and land use and growth patterns that complement the state and region’s transportation investments, and security of the regional transportation system. The applicable goals and policies of the RTP/SCS relevant to the project and an analysis of the project’s consistency with these goals and policies are provided below under the subheading Analysis of Project Impacts.

On June 6, 2013, SCAG’s Regional Council approved Amendment One to the RTP/SCS and Amendment 13-04 to the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). On September 11, 2014, SCAG’s Regional Council approved Amendment Two to the RTP/SCS. The draft amendments were developed as a response to changes to projects in the RTP/SCS and 2013 FTIP. A total of 43 projects were modified or added in these amendments, with a majority of the changes being minor in nature, including changes to completion years, as well as minor modifications to project scopes, costs, and funding. (iii) Compass Blueprint Growth Vision
SCAG also engages in the Compass Growth Vision effort that addresses the regional development pattern so as to accommodate future development and provide land patterns that improve mobility, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and support the goals and polices established in the RTP. The Growth Vision is driven by four key principles: mobility – getting where we want to go; livability - creating positive communities; prosperity - long-term health for the region; and sustainability - preserving natural surroundings.

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-6
To realize these principles on the ground, the Growth Vision encourages:

Focusing growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors; Creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities; Targeting growth around existing and planned transit stations; and Preserving existing open space and stable residential areas. As part of the visioning effort, the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy provides guidance for how and where SCAG can implement the Growth Vision for Southern California’s future. It calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation trends on only 2% of the land area of the region. Directing the changes to the selected 2% of the land identified produces the greatest policy achievement for the least land affected.

The Growth Visioning effort encourages clustering/densification of job growth and population activity in proximity to certain transportation facilities. As indicated on the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas map for the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the City of Corona and its SOI are located within a Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Area. As such, the site is within a key target area that, if developed at higher density, would help best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision for the region. In anticipation of population growth in Western Riverside County, the City of Corona has initiated several Compass Blueprint projects, including the Metrolink Station Area Plan, Downtown Revitalization Plan, and the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program (WRCOG). The applicable principles and policies of the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision relevant to the project and an analysis of the project’s consistency with these principles and policies are provided below under the subheading Analysis of Project Impacts. (b) Air Quality Management Plan
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) presents strategies for achieving the air quality planning goals set forth in the Federal and California Clean Air Acts (CCAA), including a comprehensive list of pollution control measures aimed at reducing emissions.

The SCAQMD, which was established in 1977 pursuant to the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, is responsible for bringing air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) into conformity with federal and State air pollution standards. The SCAQMD is also responsible for monitoring ambient air pollution levels throughout the Basin and for developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within federal and State standards. Consistency with the AQMP, last amended in 2012, is addressed in Section 4.B, Air Quality, of this EIR.
(c) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP). The WRC MSHCP also establishes habitat assessment requirements for certain plant, bird, mammal, and amphibian species. Discussion of the WRC MSHCP and other applicable regulatory requirements related to biological resources are provided in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR.

December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-7
(2) Local
(a) City of Corona General Plan
Local governments have the primary responsibility for the planning and regulation of land uses. State law requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of the community. This general plan must cover all incorporated territory and should go beyond the city limits to include "any land outside its boundaries which...bears relation to its planning." (Gov. Code §65300).

Because the general plan is a policy document with a long-term perspective, it includes adjacent territory (sphere of influence or SOI) that the city ultimately expects to annex or to serve. The city's SOI describes the city’s probable physical boundaries and service area and serves as a benchmark for the minimum extent of the planning area and represents those areas likely to be served by and potentially annexed to the City. The SOI for the City of Corona was defined by the city, SCAG, and the Riverside County LAFCO. The identification of the SOI is a statement of its future intent and one means by which city officials indicate to state and local governments their concerns for the future of surrounding unincorporated lands.

Therefore, the boundaries of the City of Corona General Plan Planning Area incorporate two geographical areas. These include approximately 37.6 square miles the lands within the City’s corporate limits and approximately 35.2 square miles in unincorporated Riverside County lands within its SOI. The City of Corona SOI is illustrated in Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2 of this EIR.

The City of Corona General Plan (adopted March 17, 2004, with latest updates in 2008) guides land use and public investment decisions in the City. The General Plan presents a vision for the City's future and a strategy to make that vision a reality. The General Plan is required to address these topics or elements: land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise. The City of Corona General Plan also addresses economic development, community design, historic preservation, and parks and recreation.

The General Plan is comprised of seven chapters. Chapters 3 through 6 include the General Plan elements and related goals and policies and are organized as follows:

Chapter 3 Community Development
o Land Use
o Community Design
o Housing
o Historic Resources
o Economic Development
Chapter 4 Infrastructure and Public Services
o Circulation
o Infrastructure and Utilities
o Parks, Schools, and Libraries

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-8
o Police and Fire Services
Chapter 5 Environmental Resources
o Hydrological Resources
o Biological Resources
o Agricultural and Mineral Resources
o Air Quality
o Visual Resources
Chapter 6 Environmental Hazards and Public Safety
o Seismic, Geologic, and Erosion Hazards
o Flooding Hazards
o Hazardous Materials
o Noise
o Emergency/Disaster Preparedness
Consistency with applicable goals and policies related to Land Use and Infrastructure and Utilities (Energy, Telecommunications) are presented below under the subheading Analysis of Project Impacts. Consistency with applicable goals and policies related to other environmental issues are presented in the corresponding sections of this Draft EIR.
(c) Corona Municipal Code – Title 17
The project will need to adhere to development standards of applicable code chapters within Title 17 when designing site plans for buildings, landscaping and fencing.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The analysis of potential land use impacts considers consistency of the project with applicable local and regional plans, policies, and regulations. The determination of consistency is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions pertaining to the project site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. The proposed project is considered consistent with applicable plans if it is compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude or substantially impede attainment of relevant objectives, goals, policies, principles, and standards. Determinations of significance are based not on inconsistency alone, but on instances where inconsistencies with plans, policies, and regulations also result in physical impacts on the environment. 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 land use and planning that are utilized as thresholds of December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-9
significance in this section (Thresholds 1 through 3). Accordingly, a significant land use and planning impact would occur if the project would:

Threshold 1: Physically divide an established community (refer to Impact Statement 4.I-1); Threshold 2: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement 4.I-2); and/or Threshold 3: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (refer to Impact Statement 4.I-3). c. Project Design Features (1) Project Components
The project involves the review and consideration of Tentative Tract Map 36544 for the development of 292 single-family homes, including necessary infrastructure, open space, etc. In order to facilitate the development of the residential subdivision, the following approvals and/or entitlements are necessary:

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/General on 37.61 acres; Zoning text and map amendments, including 37.61 acres to an Open Space zone, 86.23 acres to an Agriculture zone, 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; and
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544. Tentative Tract 36544 includes numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets, and utilities. Forty-five 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.

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

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-10
provided within the project site (Tentative Tract 36544) in the form of landscaped slopes, landscaped and native open space areas, and landscaped detention basins. (a) Vehicular Access, Circulation and Infrastructure Improvements The project would require the installation of roadway and intersection improvements, requiring street vacations, road closures, relocation of underground utilities, and other improvements. 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 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. Eighty-eight-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.

The planned improvements for intersections completed by the project in conjunction with the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project include the following construction of the south leg of the Border Avenue at Foothill Parkway intersection to provide a shared northbound left-through right lane, construction of the south leg of the “P” Street at Foothill Parkway intersection to provide a shared northbound left-through right lane. (b) Landscaping
Landscaping would be included along the streetscapes and in open space 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, lagerstroemia indica, platanus acerifolia, quercus agrifolia, and rhus lancea. As shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 in Chapter 2 of this EIR, plantings on commonly-owned (HOA) 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. 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. 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. Approved trees and shrubs for common and private slopes are listed on Figures 2-9 and 2-10. Common open space recreation areas would be December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-11
planted with WUCOLS low-water plants, as shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10. 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 2-9 and 2-10.

Figure 2-11 in Chapter 2 illustrates a typical layout for common slopes and open space areas. As shown in Figure 2-11, 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.

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 shall be evergreens.

Two shrubs are 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 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.
(c) 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.
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Physically Divide an Established Community
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact 4.I-1 The proposed project would not physically divide established residential communities in the vicinity of 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.

Construction
The project’s Construction Traffic Management Plan would require adherence to approved haul routes and provide a program for construction parking and staging. During the three construction phases, construction

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-12
traffic would access the project site via the Foothill Parkway Extension and “P” Street. Vehicle parking and staging would be restricted to the project site and would not encroach on the Foothills Parkway Extension or surrounding, existing neighborhood streets. Haul routes would be limited to highways and would not encroach upon or disturb existing residential neighborhoods. Therefore, construction activities would not physically divide or disrupt an established community.

Operation
The proposed project would be located to the southwest of the Foothill Parkway Extension and adjacent to an existing subdivision, Tract Map 31955. The latter contains approximately 154 single-family residential lots and, as with the project, is located to the south of the Foothill Parkway. “P” Street, a proposed 88-foot right-of-way, divided “local collector” street would serve as a primary access into the northerly portion of the project. “B” Street and Trudy Way, which are proposed 68-foot right-of-way “local collector” streets, would serve as gated primary access to the southerly portion of the project. Although “P” Street would provide primary access, because the project contains no industrial or commercial uses, any vehicles from the project traversing Trudy Way through a portion of the adjacent subdivision would be related to the proposed residential use and not dissimilar in character to residential traffic in the existing neighborhood. Limited use of Trudy Way and the local residential character of the project’s traffic during operation would reduce the project’s traffic effects on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project would not divide or adversely disrupt the existing residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Trudy Way. The project’s third phase would be located in the area of “B” Street, which is aligned with Border Avenue to the north of the Foothill Parkway Extension. The extension of the Foothill Parkway Extension to Green River Road and use of “B” Street would reduce through traffic from the project onto Border Avenue. Therefore, the project would not divide or adversely disrupt the existing residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Border Avenue.

The proposed project would not require the removal of existing land uses and would not alter current access to existing land uses within the annexation area including access to Skyline Trail, which is a recognized and designated public access trail. As shown below in Figure 4.I-1, Skyline Trail Alignment, and Figure 4.I-2, Skyline Trail Access and Trailhead Location, while the project would be developed near the existing Skyline Trail, and two limited segments of the trail alignment are contained within the annexation area and the 270.9-acre project site, respectively, the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly affect trail access or operation. Specifically, the southernmost portion of the annexation area contains an unpaved segment of the trail immediately west of an existing gate and three handicapped-accessible parking spaces at the intersection of Skyline Drive and Borrero Way, while another unpaved trail segment at a higher elevation to the west is located within the project site (southern edge of APN 275-070-003). However, no physical changes to these areas would occur as part of the project, and therefore implementation of the project would not result in direct adverse effects on the trail or otherwise affect trail access. Furthermore, the trail would not be accessible directly from the project site, given steep topography and intervening development (see Figure 4.I-2).

Skyline Trail Alignment FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.I-1
Source: KWC Engineers, 2015. 0 160 Feet N
Skyline Trail Access and Trailhead Loca on FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.I-2
Source: KWC Engineers, 2015. 0 800 Feet N

TRAILHEAD
ACCESS
POINT
December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-15
Additionally, while future project residents would likely utilize the existing trail facilities in the area for recreation, including the adjacent Skyline Trail, the increase in trail use associated with the project is expected to be nominal relative to the existing trail usage, and thus it is not expected that the project would result in measurable degradation of the trail. As such, the project would not adversely affect existing routing or substantially increase the use of Skyline Drive or the Skyline Trail itself, which currently provides regional trail access to the Cleveland National Forest.

Other existing residential and non-residential land uses in the area would be located to the north of the Foothill Parkway Extension and would not be affected by the project’s street layout or access plan.

Therefore, the project would not divide or adversely disrupt existing residential neighborhoods to the north of the Foothill Parkway Extension. Impacts with respect to the physical division of an established community would be less than significant.
(2) Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
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 Plan existing inconsistencies between the General Plan and uses on the project site would be resolved.
(a) Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 The project must meet the criteria for annexation set forth under the CKH Act. Under this regulation, Riverside LAFCO acts within a set of state-mandated parameters encouraging "planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns," the preservation of open-space lands, and the discouragement of urban sprawl. The Legislature has taken care to guide the actions of the LAFCOs by providing statewide policies and priorities for the consideration of annexations (Government Code Section 56844), and by establishing criteria for the delineation of spheres of influence (Government Code Section 56425).

Table 4.1-1, Comparison of the Proposed Annexation to Required LAFCO Consideration Factors, compares the consistency of the proposed annexation to factors under State law that must be considered by LAFCO in making a determination in the suitability of an annexation. As shown in Table 4.I-1, the project would be consistent with the population density and land area, and land use consideration factors in that population density would not exceed SCAG’s RTP projections and the site is located within the City’s SOI and is a mutually determined site for future development by LAFCO, the City, the County, and SCAG in accordance with the local government structure of the county. The proposed annexation would provide open space and would conserve access to Skyline Drive, which serves as trail access to the Cleveland National Forest to the region and thus, serve social interests of the area. The proposed subdivision would contribute approximately 21.38 acres for the City’s Foothill Parkway Extension and, thus, serve mutual economic

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-16
interests. With the implementation of project design features, government services would be adequate to serve the proposed project.

The proposed annexation would provide open space and would conserve access to Skyline Drive, which serves as trail access to the Cleveland National Forest to the region and, thus, would serve social interests of the area. The proposed subdivision associated with the annexation would provide approximately 21.38 acres for the City’s Foothill Parkway Extension and, thus, serve mutual economic interests.

The area proposed for development is adjacent to an existing residential subdivision in the R-1-7.2 zone (the same as requested for the proposed subdivision) within the City of Corona and directly across the proposed Foothill Parkway Extension from similar residential development within the City. The contiguity of the annexation site to existing development and the City boundary would provide for an orderly, efficient pattern of urban development. Also, because the annexation area is within an approved SOI, it would be consistent with state policies and priorities for conversion of open-space lands to other uses.

With regard to agricultural preserves, lands within the annexation area are not contained within agricultural preserves. However, 86.23 acres would be zoned Agriculture and 37.61 acres would be zoned Open Space.

Under the proposed zoning, approximately 64.3 percent of the annexation area (394.8 acres) would be developed and 35.39 percent would be retained as agricultural or open space land. The proposed annexation comprises contiguous properties and would not create islands or corridors of unincorporated territory. With regard to general plan consistency, the proposed annexation is located within the City of Corona’s General Plan as an SOI area proposed for single-family residences and agricultural uses. The proposed subdivision is consistent in density (du/acre) with adjacent residential subdivisions within the City.

Government Code Section 56375(a)(4)(B), requires the LAFCO annex a property where it is located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. Such is the case here, the proposed annexation area is adjacent to the City boundary to the north and east, is not designated as prime agricultural land, is located in the City of Corona SOI and designated for future development, and is located with the City of Corona’s service area.

As shown in Table 4.I-1, the proposed annexation would be substantially consistent with existing requirements and consideration factors. Because the proposed annexation would be substantially consistent with existing regulations of the CKH Act, the impact with respect to this regulation would be less than significant.

Table 4.I-1
Comparison of the Proposed Annexation to Required LAFCO Consideration Factors Factor
Evaluation of Project Consistency in Meeting Required
Consideration Factors

1. Population, population density, land area and use, per capita assessed valuation, topography, natural
boundaries, drainage basins, proximity to populated
Consistent. The effect of population density with
respect to SCAG’s RTP projections, land use, topography, natural boundaries, proximity to populated areas and
December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.I-1 (Continued)
Comparison of the Proposed Annexation to Required LAFCO Consideration Factors City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-17
Factor
Evaluation of Project Consistency in Meeting Required
Consideration Factors
areas, and the likelihood of significant growth during the next ten years.
other concerns are addressed in Chapter 2, Project
Description; Section 4.E, Geology and Soils; Section 4.K, Population, Housing, and Employment; and other
applicable sections of this EIR and, thus, provide
information to decision-makers regarding the effects of annexation.

2. Need for organized community services, present cost
and adequacy of government services and controls,
probable future needs, probable effect of the annexation and of alternative courses of action on the cost and
adequacy of services and controls in the area and
vicinity.

Consistent. The effect of the annexation on community
services is evaluated in Sections 4.L, Public Services, and

4.N, Utilities, of this EIR. As described therein, with the implementation of project design features, government
services would be adequate to serve the proposed
project.

3. The effect of the proposed annexation and of
alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests and on the local government
structure of the county.

Consistent. The annexation area is located within the
City’s SOI and is, thus, a mutually determined site for future development by LAFCO, the City, the County, and
SCAG in accordance with the local government structure
of the county. The proposed annexation would provide
open space and would conserve access to Skyline Drive,
which serves as trail access to the Cleveland National
Forest to the region and thus, serve social interests of the area. The proposed subdivision would contribute
approximately 21.38 acres for the City’s Foothill
Parkway Extension and, thus, serve mutual economic
interests.

4. Conformity of the proposal and its effects with LAFCO policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development and with state policies and
priorities in conversion of open-space lands to other
uses.

Consistent. The proposed annexation is located in the
City of Corona’s SOI and adjacent to the existing city
boundary. The area proposed for development is
adjacent to an existing residential subdivision in the R-1-

7.2 zone (the same as requested for the proposed
subdivision) within the City of Corona and directly
across the proposed Foothill Parkway Extension from
similar residential development within the City. The
contiguity of the annexation site to existing development and the City boundary would provide for an orderly,
efficient pattern of urban development. Also, because
the annexation area is within an approved SOI, it would be consistent with state policies and priorities for
conversion of open-space lands to other uses.

Approximately 86.23 acres would be zoned for
agricultural uses and 37.61 acres would be zoned for
open space. Under the proposed zoning, approximately

64.3 percent of the annexation area (394.8 acres) would be developed and 35.39 percent would be retained as
agricultural or open space land.

5. Effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve in open-space use.

Consistent. Lands within the annexation area are not
contained within agricultural preserves. However, 86.23 acres would be zoned Agriculture and 37.61 acres would

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
Table 4.I-1 (Continued)
Comparison of the Proposed Annexation to Required LAFCO Consideration Factors City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-18
Factor
Evaluation of Project Consistency in Meeting Required
Consideration Factors
be zoned Open Space.

6. Clarity of the boundaries of the territory, the
nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of
assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or
corridors of unincorporated territory and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.

Consistent. The proposed annexation comprises
contiguous properties and would not create islands or
corridors of unincorporated territory.

7. Consistency with appropriate city or county general
and specific plans.

Consistent. The proposed annexation is located within
the City of Corona’s General Plan as an SOI area
proposed for single-family residences and agricultural
uses. The proposed subdivision zoning is consistent in
density (du/acre) with adjacent residential subdivisions within the City.

8. The sphere of influence of any agency which may be
applicable to the proposal being reviewed.

Consistent. The proposed annexation area is located
within the City of Corona Sphere of Influence.

9. The comments of any affected agency. Consistent. This Draft EIR and the annexation application would be circulated for city, county, and
state agency review.

Government Code Section 56375(a): 1. The land is substantially surrounded by the city or the Pacific Ocean, is substantially developed or
developing, is not prime agricultural land, is
designated for urban growth on the city's general
plan, and is not within the sphere of influence of
another city.

Consistent. The proposed annexation area is adjacent
to the City boundary to the north and east. It is not
designated as prime agricultural land. However,
approximately 86.23 acres would be zoned for future
agricultural purposes. The site is located in the City of Corona SOI and designated for future development.

2. The land is located within an urban service area
designated by the LAFCO, is not prime agricultural
land, and is designated for urban growth on the
city's general plan.

Consistent. The proposed annexation area is located
with the City of Corona’s service area and contiguous to existing City boundaries. It is designated for future
development in the City’s general plan.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014.
(b) SCAG Regional Plans and Programs
The project site is currently undeveloped land located within the City of Corona SOI, as defined by the City of Corona, Riverside LAFCO and SCAG. The current land use designation of the project site (site of proposed residential development) in unincorporated Riverside County is Rural Mountainous (RM), which allows single-family residential development up to one dwelling unit per 10 acres (minimum 10-acre lot size).

Adjacent residential land uses in the City of Corona are zoned R1-7.2 (single-family with a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size), similar to the proposed 3 to 6 units per acre proposed by the project. The project site is also located within a Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy Area, which anticipates future growth. The project would be consistent with SCAG objectives to focus growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors and to preserve existing open space and stable residential areas. As described December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-19
above, the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation trends on only 2% of the land area of the region. The Growth Visioning effort encourages densification of job growth and population activity in proximity to certain transportation facilities. The project site is located in the City of Corona SOI, which as is the City of Corona, served by regional freeways (I-15 and SR-91) and transit (Corona’s Metrolink station) and is within a target area that, if developed at higher density, would help serve the mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision for the region.

The proposed annexation provides for the preservation of open space parcels and continued access to trails via Skyline Drive to the Cleveland National Forest. The proposed subdivision incorporates permanent, common open space areas that would preserve views and enhance the natural setting. The project would also be within the anticipated growth projected by SCAG’s RTP/SCS for the local, subregional, and regional areas, respectively, between the years of 2008 and 2035 (see Section 4.K, of this EIR). Because the project would be located within an area anticipated for future growth and consistent with the principals of SCAG regional plans and policies, it would have a less than significant impact with respect to SGAG regional plans and policies.
(c) City of Corona General Plan
The 394.8-acre annexation area, which includes the 270.9-acre project site, is currently within unincorporated Riverside County and the City of Corona SOI. 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 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. The Land Use chapter of the General Plan provides guidance for the City of Corona and its SOI. It defines how lands are to be used, the density, intensity, and physical form and character of development and a strategy that articulates where growth will occur and what lands will be conserved.

Implementation of the proposed project would require an amendment to Corona’s General Plan to incorporate the annexed portion (394.8 acres) of the SOI within the City of Corona boundary and to change the land use designation from the County’s Rural Mountainous (RM) designation and the City’s Rural Residential I (0.2 - 0.5 dwelling units/acre) designation to Low Density Residential (LDR), with a density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre on 357.19 acres, and Open Space/General on 37.61 acres.

The proposed change in land use designations for the 270.9-acre project site would be consistent with existing, adjacent residential uses, which are designated as LDR and Estate Residential (ER, with a density of 1 to 3 dwelling units per acre) within the City of Corona, as well as the existing open space and agricultural uses in the annexation area, but outside the project site. As presented in Table 4.I-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with all of the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, including those related to provision of additional housing opportunities, preservation of open space and sensitive habitat areas, adequacy of public services and infrastructure, mobility and accessibility, and sustainability and natural resource conservation.

As such, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-20
Table 4.I-2
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Community Development – Land Use
Goal 1.1 – A community that contains a diversity of land uses that supports the needs of and provides a high
quality of life for its residents, sustains and enhances the City’s economy and fiscal balance, is supported by
adequate community infrastructure and services, and is
compatible with the environmental setting and
resources.

Consistent. The proposed project would require an
amendment to the General Plan require an amendment to
Corona’s General Plan to incorporate the annexed portion (394.8 acres) of the SOI within the City of Corona
boundary and to change the City’s land use designation
from Rural Residential I (0.2 - 0.5 dwelling units/acre) to Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) on 357.14 acres and Open Space/ General on 37.61 acres.

Specific zoning on the project site (270.9 acres) would be R-1-7.2 (single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet). The remainder of the annexation
site would be zoned Agriculture (86.23 acres) and Open
Space (37.61 acres). The General Plan Amendment
would allow for the development of 292 single-family
homes and the preservation of permanent open space.

New single-family housing in the City of Corona would
expand the City’s range of land uses and support the
needs of the community, while providing a high quality of life for its residents. As discussed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, water, drainage and
sewer lines are available in the area to serve the project.

Impacts to biological and cultural resources and
transportation systems would be reduced to less than
significant levels through the implementation of design features and mitigation measures described in Sections

4.C, 4.D, and 4.M. of this EIR. The project would not result in adverse impacts and, as such, would be compatible with the environmental setting and resources. Policy 1.1.1 – Accommodate uses that support the diverse needs of Corona’s residents including
opportunities for living, commerce, employment,
recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic
engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with natural open spaces.

Consistent. The project provides housing and, thus,
provides new living space in Corona. In addition, the
project preserves open space as well as maintaining
access to existing trails (via Skyline Drive) to the
Cleveland National Forest and, as such, would be
consistent with the objectives of the General Plan to
maintain a balance between development and natural
open space.

Policy 1.1.4 -Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, etc.) Consistent. The project increases the City housing stock and mix of housing while being adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure (Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems) and public services (see Section 4.L, Public Services) of this EIR.

Policy 1.1.5 – Accommodate uses that in balance with
the preservation and conservation of open spaces for
recreation, aesthetic relief, natural resource value, and public safety (such as floodways, seismic fault zones,
and other.

Consistent. The annexation provides permanent open
space parcels between the subdivision development and
surrounding areas, as well as incorporating open space
features within the proposed subdivision, that provide
for recreation and natural resource value. As discussed in Sections 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.E,
December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.I-2 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-21
Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Geology, the project would provide adequate drainage
and retention of surface flow, would not locate
residences with canyon drainage areas or in proximity to active fault zones.

Goal 1.2 – A cohesive and integrated City comprised of
distinct and vital commercial and business districts and livable residential neighborhoods, which are correlated with supporting transportation and utility infrastructure and sustain natural open spaces, hillsides, and canyons.

Consistent. The project would provide a livable
residential neighborhood that is supported by regional
roadways, adequate utility infrastructure, and permanent open space, hillsides, and canyons within and around the proposed residential subdivision.

Policy 1.2.1 – Locate and design development to
reflect Corona’s unique physical setting considering its natural topography, environmental resources, natural
hazards, and opportunities for views in accordance with this Plan’s policies for Natural Resources and Public
Safety.

Consistent. The project, which would locate homes
within a hillside area, would minimize grading activities by following the natural topography of the area to the
extent feasible. Natural hazards, such as canyon drainage areas would be avoided and opportunities for views from open space areas within the subdivision would be
enhanced by public viewing areas. Landscape plans are
designed to avoid view blockage.

Policy 1.2.2 – Require that land uses be located and
designed to reflect and incorporate the property’s
natural drainage courses, to the extent feasible in
consideration of public safety and habitat preservation.

Consistent. The project would be designed to avoid deep drainage courses, which providing for habitat
preservation in permanent open space areas to the extent feasible (see Sections 4.C, Biological Resources, and 4.H, Hydrology, of this EIR). Goal 1.3 - Development pattern that retains and complements the City’s important residential
neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, and open spaces.

Consistent. The annexation would support open space
by providing permanent open space parcels and trail
access to the Cleveland National Forest via Skyline Drive.

The proposed density would be consistent with existing
residential development in the area and would not
detract from the City’s existing residential
neighborhoods.

Policy 1.3.1 - Permit land use development consistent
with the Land Use Plan, as depicted in Figure 3. The
following indicates the primary land use categories and the densities/intensities and, where appropriate,
heights to be permitted. Public uses may be permitted in any land use designation, consistent with Policy 1.15.2.

Consistent. Although lands within the SOI are not
depicted in Figure 3 of the General Plan, the project
would be consistent with adjacent land use and zoning
designations within the City boundary, as shown in
Figure 3, including the LDR, ER, and OS/G land use
designations and open space and R-1-7.2 zoning within
the adjacent subdivisions. Goal 1.4 – Strategic growth that preserves existing viable residential neighborhoods and commercial and
industrial districts and targets new development to
remaining vacant parcels that are environmentally
suitable and can be supported by infrastructure and
services and reuses appropriate properties to enhance
their economic vitality and community livability.

Consistent. The project would not occur in existing
residential areas or affect existing neighborhoods. The site is a vacant parcel within the City’s SOI that is slated for residential development and, as discussed in Sections

4.L, Public Services, and 4.N, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this Draft EIR, is supported by existing
infrastructure and services. No existing land uses would be redeveloped or reused.

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
Table 4.I-2 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-22
Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Policy 1.4.8 – Require that development occur only when the public infrastructure and services needed to support that development are available, will be provided concurrently, or are committed to be provided within a reasonable time frame where this would not incur adverse impacts on current
infrastructure and services, to the extent permitted by State law.

Consistent. As analyzed in Sections 4.L, Public Services, 4.M, Transportation, and 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, the project would ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available to accommodate the demand generated by the project and no adverse
impacts would occur due to project development.

Goal 1.5 – Distinct neighborhoods and districts that
contribute to the identity, character, and image of
Corona as a vital, livable, diverse, innovative, and
environmentally sustainable community.

Consistent. The project would provide a high quality
residential neighborhood, which combines residential
development, well- maintained landscaping and street
design, in combination with permanent open space, that
would contribute to the character and image of Corona as a livable and environmentally sustainable community.

Policy 1.5.1 – Promote the development of residential
neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, and public places that are distinguished by their physical
design, image, effectiveness in nurturing community
socialization and economic activity, and perception as
valued places by residents, business persons, and visitors to the City.

Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project
Description, of this EIR, the project would incorporate specific design features that include high quality
landscaping and street design, common landscaped areas
and view locations, and permanent open space that
would be valued by the residents of the area and visitors.

Policy 1.5.11 – Require the submittal and approval of
landscape plans for all development projects.

Consistent. A concept landscape plan would be
submitted as part of the permit application. Landscape
treatments would include trees, shrubs, and potted
plantings, street layouts and design, building setbacks and heights that would be consistent with the project’s landscape plan and Corona Municipal Code. Landscaping
materials will include WUCOLS drought resistant, lowwater-demand vegetation.

Goal 1.7 – Residential neighborhoods that contain a
diversity of housing and supporting uses to meet the
needs of Corona’s residents that are designed to
enhance livability and a high quality of life.

Consistent. The proposed project would provide
additional single-family housing units within the City, which would help the City meet its current and future
RHNA goals. Additionally, the proposed residential
development would include various improvements such
as new roads, open space areas, landscaping, and other
features that are intended to enhance livability of on-site residents and provide a high quality of life.

Goal 1.7 - Residential neighborhoods that contain a
diversity of housing and supporting uses to meet the
needs of Corona’s residents that are designed to
enhance livability and a high quality of life.

Consistent. The residential project would focus on
single-family homes in various sizes. Although only
containing single-family homes, the project would
contribute to the City’s overall variety and diversity of high quality housing stock and, thus, enhance livability and quality of life in the community.

December 2015 4.I. Land Use and Planning
Table 4.I-2 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-23
Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Policy 1.7.10 - Require that fencing in residential
neighborhoods meet high aesthetic and safety standards
in consideration of the following principles: - Fencing should not obstruct vehicle sight lines - Fencing should be compatible with the architectural design of nearby structures - Fencing should make a positive contribution to the character of the neighborhood
Consistent. Development plans for the project
incorporate fencing and wall plans. These include
masonry and iron features that contribute to the
character of the subdivision and are encoded in HOA
requirements.

Goal 1.9 Development of new residential
neighborhoods that complement existing neighborhoods
and assure a high level of livability for their residents.

Consistent. The project would be consistent with
zoning, lot size, density with the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east (Subdivision Tract 31955) and
with similar single family neighborhoods to the north of the Foothill Parkway Extension. As with the project,
these neighborhoods offer a high level of livability for their residents because of views, lot sizes, and high
quality new construction.

Policy 1.9.1 - Accommodate the development of new
residential neighborhoods in areas depicted by the Land Use Plan and Growth and Development Policy Plan that
contain a diversity of housing and supporting schools,
parks, and other amenities.

Consistent. The project would be located in an SOI area that anticipates new residential development. As
discussed in Section 4.L, Public Services, of this EIR, the project would either not impact or would provide
support for schools, parks, and other services.

Policy 1.9.2 - Promote the development of master
planned communities that integrate a diversity of
housing, parks, schools, trails, open spaces, and other elements into a distinct place. Establish a development pattern that ties together individual parcels into a
cohesive whole addressing the location and massing of
buildings, architecture, landscape, connective pedestrian trails, use of key landmarks, and similar elements.

Consistent. The project would be developed as a unified whole, containing pedestrian routes and pathways,
common open space and other amenities. The scale of
the development is not adequate to support public
schools, however, common open space would be
provided. The main entrances at “B” Street and “P” Street would feature a landmark to distinguish the residential community.

Goal 1.10 - Development of low-density residential
neighborhoods in areas on the City’s southern periphery that preserve the rural and open space character of their setting.

Consistent. The project would be a low-density
residential neighborhood within the southwestern
periphery of the City and characterized by its rural and open space setting.

Policy 1.10.1 - Accommodate the development of low- density single-family housing that reflects and maintains the rural character of Corona’s foothills and canyons, in accordance with the Land Use Plan’s designations and
applicable density standards and design and
development policies.

Consistent. The project would be a low-density singlefamily residential neighborhood that is characterized by its rural and open space setting. The subdivision would incorporate open space and pedestrian trails, as well as landscape and view standards that would enhance the
experience of the setting for residents.

Policy 1.10.2 - Require that development projects be
located and designed to maintain predominant
topographic forms, contours, and elevations, in the City’s foothills and canyons, in accordance with Policies

10.21.2 and 10.21.3. Consistent. The project would be designed to maintain predominant topographic forms, contours, and elevations in accordance with Policies 10.21.2 and 10.21.3.

Policy 1.10.3 - Minimize the removal of native
landscape and integrate with new residential
development, to .the extent feasible and practical for fire control.

Consistent; The project would preserve native
landscape in natural open space areas (see Section 4.C, Biological Resources) to the extent feasible. Because of the configuration of the subdivision, much of the
subdivision would be integrated into the surrounding
habitat to the extent that it is practicable and fire control is maintained.

4.I. Land Use and Planning December 2015
Table 4.I-2 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-24
Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Policy 1.10.4 - Site and design development to maintain natural drainages and habitats, except as necessary to
assure flood control.

Consistent. – Under the proposed subdivision plan,
building development would be set back from (not
encroach into) Mabey Canyon, a major drainage that
divides the site. Natural drainage would be maintained
to the extent feasible.

Policy 1.10.5 - Establish community design standards
that reflect the rural character such as the use of wood or stone fences, limited sidewalks, extensive street
landscape, low levels of street lighting, and similar
techniques.

Consistent. – The proposed subdivision would
incorporate project design features, mitigation measures and the City’s Development Plan review to ensure that
development reflects the character of the area. The
proposed landscape plan calls for extensive street
landscape and common open space that enhance views of
the natural setting and hills.

Goal 1.16 - Open spaces that provide Corona’s residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment,
provide visual “relief” from urban development, protect significant plant and animal habitats, and protect
development from natural environmental hazards.

Consistent. The proposed annexation would provide

37.61 acres of designated “open space” land and 86.23
acres of designated “agriculture” land that would be
conserved for open space or agricultural purposes. In
addition, the proposed subdivision would incorporate
common open space areas. These areas would provide
visual “relief,” protect significant plant and animal
habitats, e protect development from natural
environmental hazards. Policy 1.16.2 - Require the dedication of additional open spaces in new residential subdivisions and other
applicable development, where necessary, to preserve
the natural topography, plant and animal habitats, and
flooding and drainage corridors in accordance with
subsequent policies of this Plan
Consistent. The project would largely preserve Mabey
Canyon, a major drainage, and other surrounding
topographic features and conserve habitat in drainages
(See Section 4.H, Hydrology, of this EIR. The proposed
subdivision would also incorporate common open space
areas on the periphery of the developed area. Infrastructure and Public Services – Energy Policy 7.11.1 – Require that new development is
approved contingent upon its ability to be served with
adequate natural gas facilities and infrastructure.

Consistent. Natural gas lines are currently located in the surrounding street system that would provide service to the site.

Policy 7.12.1 – Require that new development is
approved contingent upon the ability to be served with
adequate electrical facilities and service.

Consistent. Electrical facilities are currently located both on- and off-site. Policy 7.12.3 – Continue to provide for the undergrounding of new and existing electrical
distribution lines unless it is determined not to be
economically or practically feasible as a result of
significant environmental or other constraints.

Consistent. Utilities serving the project site would be located underground.

Infrastructure and Public Services – Telecommunications Policy 7.13.1 – Require that new development be
approved contingent upon its ability to be served by
adequate telecommunication and other supporting
infrastructure.

Consistent. Telecommunication infrastructure currently
exists in the area and would be available to serve the site.

Source: City of Corona General Plan, 2004 as amended; ICF International, 2013; and PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

December 2015 – PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – 4.I. Land Use and Planning City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-25
(3) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan
Threshold 3: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
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.

As discussed in detail in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP and would comply with the WRC MSHCP. The project site is not within a Criteria Cell, nor is it within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Species, Amphibian Species, or Mammal Species Survey Areas. The project is also not located within a MSHCP designated Core or Linkage and will not impact overall Reserve Assembly goals, although the project does adjoin PQP (public quasi-public) and would isolate a 10-acre PQP parcel. None of the identified Planning Species for the Temescal Canyon Area Plan have been located within the survey area. 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 and the SKR HCP. Project implementation would be carried out in compliance with the WRC MSHCP as relates to (1) core and linkage areas, (2) PQP lands, (3) burrowing owl habitat areas, (4) riparian/riverine habitat areas, and (5) urban/wildland interface areas. The Applicant would pay the required MSHCP development mitigation fee.

Payment of the WRC MSHCP development mitigation fee is required for the undeveloped/vacant areas within the project boundaries. The fee is intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA for impacts on the species and habitats covered by the WRC MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with USFWS and CDFG, as set forth in the implementing agreement for the MSHCP. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered consistent with the WRC MSHCP and impacts would be less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in cumulatively significant land use impacts relative to compliance with the applicable objectives, goals, principles, policies, actions or standards of the SCAG RCP, SCAG RTP/SCS, SCAG Compass Blueprint Growth Vision, City of Corona General Plan, or City of Corona Municipal Code. Any current and future development projects within the City of Corona would be subject to environmental review on a project-by-project basis to evaluate consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations as well as the potential to divide a community or conflict with applicable conservation plans. As part of environmental review of individual projects, mitigation would be provided to address any physical impacts due to plan inconsistency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to land use impacts associated with dividing a community or plan inconsistencies and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

4.I. Land Use and Planning – PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – December 2015 City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.I-26

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
With the approval of the General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map and Text Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and project design features described in other sections of this EIR, the project would not conflict with relevant land use plans, policies and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project-related and cumulative impacts associated with land use and planning would be less than significant.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
J. NOISE

INTRODUCTION
This section describes noise and groundborne vibration fundamentals, relevant regulations, and existing conditions associated with noise. Based on applicable thresholds of significance, the section also analyzes the potential impacts of project construction and operational noise on noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Information in this section is largely based on information and findings obtained in the Noise Impact Analysis Skyline Heights Project (“Noise Study”), prepared by First Carbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates, dated April 24, 2014. The Noise Study is contained in Appendix I of this EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Noise Fundamentals
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (“dB”) is a logarithmic unit, which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A-weighted decibels (“dBA”) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear.
(1) Noise Descriptors
Noise equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The equivalent sound level (“Leq”) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak traffic hour Leq is the noise metric used by California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) for all traffic noise impact analyses.

The Day-Night Average Sound Level (“Ldn”) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of ten dBs to sound levels at night between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M. While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 dB to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 P.M. and 10 P.M. These additions are made to the sound levels at these times because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason the sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. Many cities rely on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation-related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.

Another noise descriptor that is used primarily for the assessment of aircraft noise impacts is the Sound Exposure Level, which is also called the Single Event Level (“SEL”). The SEL descriptor represents the

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-2
acoustic energy of a single event (i.e., an aircraft overflight) normalized to one-second event duration. This is useful for comparing the acoustical energy of different events involving different durations of the noise sources. The SEL is based on an integration of the noise during the period when the noise first rises within 10 dBA of its maximum value and last falls below 10 dBA of its maximum value. The SEL is often 10 dBA greater, or more, than the LMAX since the SEL logarithmetically adds the Leq for each second of the duration of the noise.
(2) Tone Noise
A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown the humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone. For a noise source to contain a “pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A-weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources. A pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one-third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of the sound pressure levels of the two contagious one-third octave bands by 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 Hertz (“Hz”) and above; by 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz; and by 15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less. (3) Noise Propagation
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (“dBA/DD”). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD. (4) Ground Absorption
The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models: soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft-site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard-site conditions. To be conservative, hard-site conditions were used in this analysis.
(5) Traffic Noise Prediction
The level of traffic noise depends on the three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-3
combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Because of the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) community noise assessment criteria, this change is “barely perceptible,” for reference a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA. However, the 1992 findings of Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (“FICON”), which assessed changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations, found that noise increases as low as 1.5 dB can cause annoyance, when the existing noise levels are already greater than 65 dB. The truck mix on a given roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase.
(6) Noise Barrier Attenuation
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half.

For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of a road. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. A noise barrier can achieve a 5- dBA noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight. When the noise barrier is a berm instead of a wall, the noise attenuation can be increased by another 3 dBA. b. Groundborne Vibration Fundamentals
Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of groundborne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
(1) Vibration Descriptors
Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (“PPV”) or the root mean square (“RMS”) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Because of the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in dBs denoted as LV and is based on the RMS velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is VdB, which in this text, is when the particle velocity level (“LV”) or sound velocity level (“SVL”) is based on the reference quantity of 1 microinch per second. The LV should not be confused with the speed of sound.
(2) Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel- wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-4
(3) Vibration Propagation
The propagation of groundborne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise. This is because noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while groundborne vibrations travel through the earth, which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.
(4) Construction-Related Vibration Level Prediction
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4.J-1, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. The data in Table 4.J-1 provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.
c. Existing Noise Conditions
(1) Measurement Procedure and Criteria
To ascertain the existing noise at and adjacent to the project site, field monitoring was conducted on Wednesday, May 1, 2013. The field survey noted that noise within the project area is generally characterized by sounds of nature (i.e., birds), construction activity, and roadway traffic noise. (2) Noise Measurement Equipment
Noise monitoring was performed using an Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating sound level meter. The Extech meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record the sound pressure level at 1-second intervals for in A-weighted form. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated before monitoring using an Extech calibrator, Model 407766. The noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).

December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-5
(3) Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current noise sources impacting the vicinity of the project site and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. The selected sites are shown in Figure 4.J-1, Noise Monitoring Locations. Appendix I includes a photographic index of the study area and noise level measurement locations.
(4) Noise Measurement Timing and Climate
The noise measurements were recorded between 08:53 hours and 11:00 hours on Wednesday, May 1, 2013.

At the start of the noise monitoring, the skies were partly cloudy, winds ranging between 0 to 3 miles per hour, the temperature was 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
(5) Noise Measurement Results
The noise measurements were taken at five (5) locations at and adjacent to the project site. The results of the noise level measurements are provided below in Table 4.J-2, Existing Noise Level Measurements from Noise Study. d. Regulatory Framework
(1) Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:

Table 4.J-1
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level (LV)
at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range), 0.644 (typical) 112, 104 Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 (upper range), 0.170 (typical) 105, 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 in soil, 0.017 in rock 66, 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-6
Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce; Assisting state and local abatement efforts; and
Promoting noise education and research.

The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (“ONAC”) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) agency limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leq or less for 8 continuous hours or 105 dB Leq or less for 1 continuous hour. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (“UMTA”), while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the FHWA. Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation sources, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

Table 4.J-2
Existing Noise Level Measurements from Noise Study
Site Location Description Leq LMAX LMIN
Site 1 Western side of Adobe Avenue, north of proposed Planning Area 1 48.6 64.6 43.3 Site 2 Eastern end of Chisholm Trail Circle, east of proposed Planning Area 1 43.0 54.1 38.8 Site 3 Western terminus of the public right-of-way portion of Mabey Canyon Road, adjacent to Mabey Canyon Debris Basin and within proposed Planning Area 1.

44.9 55.2 39.0
Site 4 Southern terminus of Elker Road, adjacent to Skyline Drive/Trail and south of proposed Planning Area 3.

47.4 60.4 40.9
Site 5 Intersection of Green River Road and Paseo Grande, north of proposed Planning Area 1.

57.7 71.1 43.4
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates, 2014 Noise Monitoring Loca ons FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.J-1
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2013.
0 1400 Feet N
N.A.P

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-8
This page is intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-9
(2) State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (“ONC”) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model, which is illustrated in Table 4.J-3, Land Use Compatibility Matrix, which allows the local jurisdiction, such as the City of Corona, to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60-dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL annual threshold. In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft noise.

Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
(3) Local Regulations
The City of Corona General Plan establishes the following applicable conclusions, recommendations, standards, policies, and regulations regarding noise and vibration. (4) City of Corona General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Corona General Plan provides the conclusions, recommendations, and strategies necessary to ensure an appropriately quiet and pleasurable environment for the residents, employees, and visitors in the County’s unincorporated areas. Since the regulation of transportation noise sources such as roadway and aircraft primarily fall under either State or federal jurisdiction, local jurisdictions will generally use land use and planning decisions to limit locations or volumes of such transportation noise sources, to avoid development within noise impact zones, or to shield impacted receivers or sensitive receptors.
(a) City of Corona General Plan Noise Element
Applicable Conclusions and Recommendations:

In the planning of land use, 65 CNEL should be regarded as the maximum exterior aircraft noise exposure compatible with noise sensitive uses. Where roadway noise exceeds 65 CNEL, mitigation is required;
The California Noise Insulation Standards sets a 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for new multifamily residential units; and

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-10
Noise-sensitive land uses should be considered to include:
o Residential, including single and multifamily dwellings, and similar uses; o Libraries, school classroom areas, churches, and other similar areas; Table 4.J-3
Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Categories Community Noise Equivalent Level CNEL Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80>
Residential Single Family Duplex A A B B D D D
Multiple Family A A B B C D D
Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D
Commercial
Regional, District Hotel, Mote Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial
Regional, Village, District,
Special
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant,
Movie Theatre A A A A B B C
Commercial
Office
Institutional
Office Building, Research and
Development, Professional Offices,
City Office Building

A A A B B C D
Commercial
Recreation
Institutional
Civic Center
Amphitheater, Concert Hall
Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C C D D D
Commercial
Recreation
Children’s Amusement Park,
Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track,
Equestrian Center, Sports Club

A A A B B D D
Commercial
General, Special
Industrial, Institutional
Automobile Service Station, Auto
Dealership, manufacturing,
Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities

A A A A B B B
Institutional
General
Hospital, Church, Library, Schools,
Classroom A A B C C D D
Open Space Parks A A A B C D D
Open Space
Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature
Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife
Habitat

A A A A B C C
Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A
Interpretation
Zone A
Clearly Compatible
Specified land use is satisfactory. based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements Zone B
Normally Compatible
New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed Analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction with dosed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Note that residential uses are prohibited with airport CNEL greater than 6S.

Zone C
Normally Incompatible
New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed. A detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Zone D
Clearly Incompatible New construction of development should generally not be undertaken December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-11
o Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, and other facilities for long-term medical care;
The City of Corona General Plan requires development in areas that exceed or may in the future exceed the 65 DB (A) Ldn to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate design measures in their construction to reduce the interior levels to 45 DB (A) Ldn.

It is required for all areas with existing or future ambient noise levels that exceed an exterior noise level of 65 DB (A) Ldn to provide satisfactory buffering or construction mitigation measures for all development of new housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other “noise sensitive” land uses.
(b) City of Corona Municipal Code
The City of Corona, California Municipal Code establishes the following noise regulations that are relevant to the proposed project.

Title 17 – Zoning, 17.84 Performance Standards
Section 17.84.040 – Noise: Stationary Noise Standards
(C) 2) Residential land uses including single, double, and multi uses shall have an exterior maximum allowable noise level of 55 dBA CNEL between 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. and 50 dBA CNEL between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M. Interior noise standards from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. are 45 dBA CNEL and 35 dBA CNEL from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.
(D) Exterior Noise:

1. It shall be unlawful for any person, entity, or operation at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; b) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes any hour; c) The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; d) The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; e) The noise standard plus 20 dB for any period of time; (E) Interior Noise: It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured within any other residential dwelling unit or sensitive land use to exceed; 1) The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; 2) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or 3) The noise standard plus 10 dB, or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-12
Section 17.84.040 – Noise: (3) Transportation Noise Sources The maximum exterior noise level for transportation, both roadway and airport, within residential land uses is 65 dBA CNEL while the interior maximum is 45 dBA CNEL.

Section 17.84.040 – Noise: (D) Special Provisions
(2) Construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through Saturday and 6:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. Sundays and federal holidays.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
Potential impacts from short-term and long-term stationary and mobile noise sources associated with the proposed project are assessed quantitatively. The project Applicant provided information regarding on-site construction activities and on-site and off-site operations. Construction activities are calculated from the acoustical center of construction. The acoustical center of construction is the idealized point from which construction could occur. It takes into account the mobility of construction equipment and is derived from multiplying the furthest distance construction equipment could be from a sensitive receiver with the closest distance (construction staging area) and then taking the square root of the product. Changes in noise level at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses attributable to the proposed project were also evaluated. This included an evaluation of whether noise generated from on-site operations could affect local residences at both existing and future on- and off-site noise-sensitive land uses. Off-site traffic volumes on local roadways would increase as a result of the proposed project, which would incrementally increase traffic noise in the project area. Noise impacts related to vehicular traffic were modeled using a version of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), as modified for CNEL and the “Calveno” energy curves. Sitespecific information is entered, such as roadway traffic volumes, roadway active width, source-to-receiver distances, travel speed, noise source and receiver heights, and the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks that the traffic is made up of throughout the day, amongst other variables. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Skyline Heights (“TIA”), prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated July 16, 2013. The TIA is contained in Appendix I of this EIR.

Project-Related Traffic
Impacts attributable to project-specific traffic increases would be considered significant if they create a 5- dBA or greater increase in noise levels along roadways accessed by project-specific traffic (3 dBA if resulting noise level exceeds 65 dBA at sensitive receptor boundaries). Offsite noise levels were calculated along roadway segments in the project vicinity for the following scenarios:

Existing Conditions
Existing plus Project
Year 2020, without Project
Year 2020, with Project
Year 2035 (Cumulative), without Project
December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-13
Year 2035 (Cumulative), with Project
Using the traffic noise modeling parameters outlined above, the various scenarios that are described above were modeled to determine project-specific increases in noise levels at a uniform distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. The uniform distance allows for direct comparisons of potential increases or decreases in noise levels based upon various traffic scenarios; however, at this distance, no specific noise standard necessarily applies. Therefore, the change in a noise level between scenarios is the focus of this portion of the analysis, rather than the resulting independent noise level for any one segment. b. Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of questions to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant impact related to various environmental issues including noise. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to noise would occur if the proposed project would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-1 below);
Threshold 2: Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-2 below);
Threshold 3: A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-1 below); Threshold 4: A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-1 below); Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-3 below);
Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement 4.J-3 below); or
Threshold 7: 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.J-4 below).

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-14
c. Project Design Features
There are no specific Project Design Features (“PDFs”) that relate to potential noise impacts. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Noise Generation
Threshold 1: Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards presumed in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Threshold 4: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 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. (a) Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Short-term noise impacts could potentially occur during project construction activities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated onsite during demolition and ground clearing activities, excavation, grading, and similar ground-disturbing activities.

Construction noise levels vary significantly based upon the size and topographical features of the active construction zone, duration of the workday, and types of equipment employed. According to the Noise Study, a typical eight-hour construction day would generate 84 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source, on average. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.

Although there would be potential for a relatively high single-event noise exposure resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect on long-term ambient noise levels would be nominal when averaged over a longer period. As illustrated by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 4.J-2, maximum noise levels in the project vicinity are currently up to 71.1 dBA.

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition of the existing onsite structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-15
fabrication. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity.

The closest noise-sensitive uses to the project site are the single-family residences located along Condor Circle, Clearview Circle, and Meadow Crest Circle, approximately 75 feet northeast of the project site boundary.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction and typical construction activities. The data pertaining to the types of construction equipment and activities that would occur at the project site are presented in Table 4.J-4, Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Table 4.J-5, Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source (i.e., reference distance). The noise levels shown in Table 4.J-4 represent composite noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of construction. According to Table 4.J-4, outdoor noise levels at noise- sensitive receptors 50 feet from the noise source would range from 77 dBA to 86 dBA with the use of noise- attenuating devices. As illustrated in Table 4.J-5, construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction is presented as an average of 86 dBA when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. These noise levels would diminish notably with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor.

During construction, two basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate noise at the project site. The first activity would involve the preparation and grading of the project site to accommodate the building foundations for the proposed project. The second activity that would generate noise during construction would involve the physical construction and finishing of the proposed residential buildings.

The annexation area that is not part of the proposed project would be graded and potentially constructed upon at a later date and would be subject to all the noise standards of the proposed project. It is unknown at this time how the grading of the annexation area would be phased. As such, impacts from this area would be addressed as they become specific projects and would be required to undergo a similar analysis. Further, the existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the annexation area are further away from the project boundary than the receptors analyzed for the proposed project. Therefore construction noise impacts would be similar to, or less than those already reported herein.

Table 4.J-6, Exterior Noise at Nearest Offsite Sensitive Uses from Project Construction, illustrates the construction noise levels that would occur at the adjacent offsite sensitive uses during construction at the project site. The peak construction noise levels experience by the adjacent offsite sensitive receptors would be approximately 82 dBA, with the use of mufflers on the construction equipment. However, the increase in noise levels at the offsite locations during construction at the project site would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from construction are possible. As such, the estimated noise level increases at each sensitive receptor that is shown in Table 4.J-6 would only occur periodically, not continuously, throughout the construction day.

Additionally, in the later phases of construction when work is being conducted within the interior of the proposed buildings, the noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors would be further reduced as the

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-16
physical structures that are constructed onsite would break the line-of-sight noise transmission from the proposed project to the offsite receptors.

Table 4.J-4
Construction Equipment Noise Levels.

Equipment
Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet
60 70 80 90 100 110 EQUIPMENT POWERED B INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES EARTH MOVING Compacters
(Rollers)
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, Graders
Pavers Trucks MATERIAL HANDLINGConcrete Mixers Concrete Pumps Cranes (Moveable)
Cranes (Derrick) STATION ARY
Pumps Generators Compressors IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Pneumatic
Wrenches
Jack Hammers and
Rock Drills
Pile Drivers OTHE R
Vibrators Saws Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,” NTID 300-1.

December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-17
Nonetheless, the typical construction noise levels associated within the proposed project would exceed the residential noise standard of 65 dBA at the closest residential receptor boundary. As such, construction- related noise impacts associated with the proposed project could be potentially significant.

Project 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-1).

Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses (Mitigation Measure NS-2). Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously (Mitigation Measure NS-3). The use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall be minimized (Mitigation Measure NS-4). The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-ofthe-art noise shielding and muffling devices (Mitigation Measure NS-5). 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-6). All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Planning Department, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible (Mitigation Measure NS-7). Adjacent land uses Table 4.J-5
Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Average Noise Levels
at 50 Feet with
Mufflers (dBA)
Average Noise Levels
at 60 Feet with
Mufflers (dBA)
Average Noise Levels
at 100 Feet with
Mufflers (dBA)
Average Noise Levels
at 200 Feet with
Mufflers (dBA)
Ground Clearing 82 80 76 70
Excavation, Grading 86 84 80 74
Foundations 77 75 71 65
Structural 83 81 77 71
Finishing 86 84 80 71
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971,
Table 4.J-6
Exterior Noise at Nearest Offsite Sensitive Uses from Project Construction Sensitive Land Use
Approximate
Distance to
Project Site
(ft.)
Estimated Highest Average
Construction Noise Level at
Property Line (dBA)
Residences located adjacent to the northeast
portion of the project site along Condor Circle,
Clearview Circle and Meadow Crest Circle.
75 82
Source: First Carbon Solutions-Michael Brandman Associates, 2013; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report, May 2006.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-18
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 (Mitigation Measure NS-8).

Overall, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures, impacts related to short-term construction noise would be less than significant.
(b) Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts
Potential noise impacts associated with the long-term operations of the proposed project would include stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project and vehicular traffic on roadways within the project vicinity. As the project proposes residential uses, it is not considered a source of onsite operational noise. The nearest main road to the proposed project is West Foothill Parkway. Lots 247 and 251 would be located nearest West Foothill Parkway. However, both lots would be located at least 50 feet from the road right-of-way (“ROW”) with pad elevations of at least 30 feet above the roadway. According to the Noise Study, at this distance and elevation, the roadway noise would be approximately 43.8 dBA CNEL, which is below the residential noise standard of 65 dBA. The roads proposed within the proposed project are collectors and would not be a source of significant traffic noise. To further reduce roadway noise, the embankment between the road ROW and the backyard of the proposed homes would be landscaped with a perimeter wall to be placed on top of the embankment.

The project traffic noise roadway impacts were calculated by comparing the existing traffic noise levels with the existing plus project, the comparison of Year 2020 traffic noise levels both with and without the project, and Year 2035 traffic noise levels both with and without the project; refer to Table 4.J-7, Project Traffic Noise Contributions. The segments modeled in the Noise Study include Green River Road, Paseo Grande, Ontario Avenue, Border Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Foothill Parkway. As presented in Table 4.J-7, no roadway segments have an increase of 3 dBA or greater. The highest increase is 1.3 dBA CNEL along the segment of Foothill Parkway between Elysia Street and Lincoln Avenue under the existing and existing plus project scenarios. Thus, the change in noise levels from existing conditions for this scenario is not considered significant. As such, impacts related to long-term operational noise would be less than significant.

December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project

4.J 19
Table 4.J 7
Project Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadways/Road
Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Year 2020 Year 2035 ADT dB CNEL
Existing
plus
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Without
Project ADT dB
CNEL
With
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Without
Project ADT dB
CNEL
With
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Green River Road
between Serf as
Club Drive and
Paseo Grande
12,398 68.6 13,228 68.9 0.3 16,303 69.8 17,273 70.1 0.3 26,492 71.9 27,462 72.1 0.2 Paseo Grande
between Ontario
Avenue and
Green River Road
12,357 68.6 13,187 68.9 0.3 7,893 66.7 8,031 66.7 0.0 9,546 67.5 9,684 67.6 0.1 Ontario Avenue
between Paseo
Grande and
Border Avenue
10,413 67.9 11,383 68.3 0.4 1,959 60.6 1,959 60.6 0.0 2,304 61.3 2,304 61.3 0.0 between Border
Avenue and Via
Pacifica
11,873 68.4 11,873 68.4 0.0 5,400 65.0 5,400 65.0 0.0 6,353 65.7 6,353 65.7 0.0 between Via
Pacifica and
Lincoln Avenue
25,677 71.8 25,677 71.8 0.0 17,157 70.0 17,157 70.0 0.0 20,184 70.8 20,184 70.8 0.0 Border Avenue
between Via
Pacifica and
Ontario Avenue
3,362 63.0 3,500 63.1 0.1 3,539 63.2 3,677 63.4 0.2 4,177 63.9 4,315 64.0 0.1 between Ontario
Avenue and
Foothill Parkway
3,097 62.6 4,205 63.9 1.3 3,205 62.8 3,343 62.9 0.1 3,695 63.4 3,833 63.5 0.1 Lincoln Avenue
between Citron
Street and
Ontario Avenue
20,521 70.8 21,213 71.0 0.2 18,997 70.5 19,551 70.6 0.1 21,883 711 22,437 71.2 0.1 between Ontario
Avenue and
Foothill Parkway
16,785 69.9 17,616 70.2 0.3 6,721 66.0 7,413 66.4 0.4 9,209 67.3 9,901 67.7 0.4

4.J. Noise December 2015
Table 4.J 7
Project Traffic Noise Contributions
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project

4.J 20
Roadways/Road
Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Year 2020 Year 2035 ADT dB CNEL
Existing
plus
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Without
Project ADT dB
CNEL
With
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Without
Project ADT dB
CNEL
With
Project ADT dB
CNEL
Project
Specific
Increase
Foothill Parkway
between Elysia
Street and
Lincoln Avenue
4,941 64.6 6,603 65.9 1.3 9,336 67.4 10,860 68.1 0.7 21,619 71.0 23,143 71.32 0.3 between n
Lincoln Avenue
and Highgrove
Street
6,352 65.7 7,182 66.3 0.6 8,990 67.2 9,820 67.6 0.4 16,203 69.8 17,035 70.0 0.2 Source: FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates, 2014 December 2015 4.J. Noise
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-21
(2) Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Threshold 2: Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
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.
(a) Short-Term Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activities could produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. According to the Noise Study, the primary source of vibration during project construction would be from a large bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Groundborne vibration typically decreases rapidly with distance. The closest receptors to the project site are the residential uses located approximately 75 feet from the northeastern project boundary. The vibration levels caused by a large bulldozer operating 75 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor would be less than 0.02 inch per second RMS. This vibration level would not exceed the City’s regulatory standard for vibration sources of 0.05 inch per second. As such, impacts related to short- term construction vibration would be less than significant. (b) Long-Term Operational Vibration Impacts
As the project proposes residential uses, the proposed project does not include any sources of operational vibration. As such, impacts related to long-term operational vibration impacts would be less than significant. (3) Aircraft/Airport Noise
Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact 4.J-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels from airport-related noise. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

The Corona Municipal Airport is located more than three miles to the northeast of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip. Therefore, the project site would not receive airport-related noises and would not expose people residing or working within the project area to excessive noise levels. As such, impacts related to aircraft/airport noise impacts would be less than significant.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-22
(4) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold 7: 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.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.

As mentioned above, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Further, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan regarding noise, as discussed below in Table 4.J-8, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As illustrated in Table

4.J-8, impacts related to consistency with the City of Corona General Plan regarding noise would be less than significant. 3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In order for the proposed project to create a cumulative considerable impact, the proposed project’s portion of the cumulative increase in noise would need to increase the noise levels by 3 dBA to 5 dBA at sensitive receptor boundaries. As presented in Table 4.J-7, the highest increase for the year 2035 with and without the project scenarios is 0.4 dBA CNEL along the segment of Foothill Parkway between Elysia Street and Lincoln Avenue. As such, no cumulative noise impact is anticipated.

Table 4.J-8
General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
Environmental Hazards and Public Safety – Noise
Policy 11.5.1 – Require that in areas where existing or future ambient noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dB(A) Ldn, all development of new housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other “noise sensitive” land uses shall include satisfactory buffering and/or construction mitigation measures to
reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits.

Consistent. A full analysis of construction and
operational impacts related to noise was prepared for the proposed project, as provided in the Noise Study (see
Appendix I in this Draft EIR). The proposed project would be designed to minimize noise impacts. Overall,
compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements
of the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures NS-1 through NS-8,
impacts related to short-term construction noise would be less than significant.

As the project proposes residential uses, it is not
considered a source of on-site operational noise. The
nearest main road to the proposed project is West Foothill Parkway. Lots 247 and 251 would be located nearest
West Foothill Parkway. However, both lots would be
located at least 50 feet from the road right-of-way
(“ROW”) with pad elevations of at least 30 feet above the roadway. According to the Noise Study, at this distance December 2015 4.J. Noise
Table 4.J-8 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-23
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Statement
and elevation, the roadway noise would be approximately

43.8 dBA CNEL, which is below the residential noise
standard of 65 dBA. The roads proposed within the
proposed project are collectors and would not be a source of significant traffic noise. To further reduce roadway noise, the embankment between the road ROW and the
backyard of the proposed homes would be landscaped
with a perimeter wall to be placed on top of the
embankment.

Policy 11.5.3 – Require development in all areas where
the existing or future ambient noise level exceeds 65
dB(A) Ldn to conduct an acoustical analysis and
incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB(A) Ldn level, as depicted on Table 5.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 11.5.1
Policy 11.5.4 – Encourage existing “noise sensitive uses,” including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed 65 dB(A) Ldn to incorporate fences, walls, landscaping, and/or other noise buffers and barriers,
where appropriate and feasible.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 11.5.1
Policy 11.5.5 – Require development that generates
increased traffic and substantial increases in ambient
noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, to
provide appropriate mitigation measures in accordance
with the acceptable limits of the City Noise Ordinance.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 11.5.1
Policy 11.5.6 – Require construction activities that occur in close proximity to existing “noise sensitive” uses,
including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses to limit the hours and days of operation in accordance with City Noise Ordinance.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 11.5.1
Goal 11.7 – Provide for the reduction of noise spillover or encroachment where the noise environment from
commercial and industrial land uses is unacceptable; and protect and maintain adjoining residential areas and other “noise sensitive” areas having acceptable noise
environments.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 11.5.1
Source: City of Corona General Plan (2004) and PCR Services Corporation (2014).

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
(1) Construction
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.

4.J. Noise December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.J-24
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 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.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that impacts related to noise and vibration remain less than significant.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
K. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT

INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the potential population growth, housing, and employment effects of the proposed project in the context of the local area (the City of Corona), the Western Riverside subregion, and the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) regional area of the proposed project. The analysis evaluates the proposed project’s population growth, housing, and employment effects in relation to adopted growth forecasts and relevant policies and programs. Demographic data and projections presented in this section are primarily based on SCAG forecasts contained in the SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS"), which was adopted in April 2012. The City of Corona General Plan Housing Element (2004) and Final Housing Element 2013-2021 includes the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address housing needs in the City. A discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable goals, policies and programs of the Housing Element is also provided in this section. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Existing Conditions
(1) Existing On-Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The majority of the 394.8-acre annexation Project site is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of one existing single-family homes, a nursery, and buildings formerly used in conjunction with a horse stable.

Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, northeast, and east. (2) Demographic Analysis of the Areas
The project area is located within the regional area of SCAG, the subregional area of Western Riverside, and the local area of the City of Corona (“City”) demographic areas. The largest area is the regional area of SCAG, which includes 14 subregions, including Western Riverside. The Western Riverside subregion consists of 17 Riverside County cities, the County of Riverside, the Eastern Municipal Water District (“EMWD”), the Western Municipal Water District (“WMWD”), March Joint Powers Authority (“March JPA”), and Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. The local area boundary of the project area is the City. Table 4.K-1, Existing Population, Housing, and Employment Summary, below, discusses the population, housing, and employment numbers for the local, subregion, and regional areas for the year 2008 based on SCAG data.

As shown in Table 4.K-1 and according to the data contained in the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS, for 2008 the City has an estimated population of approximately 148,000 residents, approximately 44,600 households, and 71,200 employees. The Western Riverside subregional area has a residential population of approximately 2,128,000 residents, a household total of approximately 679,000 households, and approximately 664,000 employees. The SCAG regional area has a total residential population of 17,895,000 residents, approximately 5,814,000 households, and approximately 7,738,000 employees.

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-2
The 2012 RTP/SCS provides data on projected population, housing, and employment at various geographical levels within the SCAG region. The following analysis will provide an overview of the projections and trends anticipated for population, housing, and employment in relation to the proposed project as provided by SCAG. The SCAG projection data for population, housing, and employment are shown in Table 4.K-2, Population, Housing, and Employment Projections, above. In correlation with each trend, population, housing, and employment within the City are anticipated to increase through the year 2035. Job/housing ratio projections are provided below in Table 4.K-3, Job/Housing Ratio Projections. b. Projections and Trends (1) Population
According to SCAG’s regional forecast, the population will increase in all geographic zones during the years between 2008 and 2035. In the local area of the City, the percentage growth is an approximate 11.22 percent increase between the years 2008 and 2035. During the same time period, the population growth in the subregional area of Western Riverside is forecasted to have a percentage increase of 56.20 percent, and an approximate percentage increase of 23.45 percent for the regional area of SCAG. (2) Housing
The SCAG housing forecasts indicate that the housing growth in the local area of the City is projected to increase by approximately 9.42 percent between the years of 2008 and 2035. During the same time period, the housing growth for the subregional area of Western Riverside is forecasted to be approximately 60.82 percent. The housing forecast for the regional area of SCAG is estimated to experience an increase of 25.99 percent. The large increase in housing within the subregional and regional areas can be attributed to the County’s growing population and residential development to accommodate it.

Table 4.K-1
Existing Population, Housing, and Employment Summary
Total
Population
Total
Households a TotalEmployment
Local Area
Corona 148,000 44,600 71,200
Subregional Area
Western Riverside 2,128,000 679,000 664,000
Regional Area
SCAG 17,895,000 5,814,000 7,738,000
a SCAG’s growth forecasts reflect the number of households present within an area rather than the number of housing units.

Source: PCR Services Corporation based on data presented in Table 18 of the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS projections, April 2012.

December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-3
(3) Employment
According to SCAG, the local area of the City will have an employment percent increase of approximately

47.47 percent between the years of 2008 and 2035. Employment in the subregional area of Western Riverside is projected to increase by 87.20 percent while the regional area of SCAG is projected to increase

22.01 percent, during the same time period.

Table 4.K-2
Population, Housing, and Employment Projections
Geographic Zone
Actual
2008
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
2008-2035
Growth a PercentageChange (%)
Population
Local Area 148,000 155,800 164,600 16,600 +11.22
Subregional Area 2,128,000 2,592,000 3,324,000 1,196,000 +56.20 Regional Area 17,895,000 19,663,000 22,091,000 4,196,000 +23.45 Housing
Local Area 44,600 46,100 48,800 4,200 +9.42
Subregional Area 679,000 834,000 1,092,000 413,000 +60.82 Regional Area 5,814,000 6,458,000 7,325,000 1,511,000 +25.99 Employment
Local Area 71,200 88,300 105,000 33,800 +47.47
Subregional Area 664,000 939,000 1,243,000 579,000 +87.20 Regional Area 7,738,000 8,414,000 9,441,000 1,703,000 +22.01 a 2008-2035 growth was calculated by taking the difference between projected 2035 and actual 2008.

Source: PCR Services Corporation based on data presented in Table 18 of the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS projections, April 2012.

Table 4.K-3
Job/Housing Ratio Projections a Projected Projected
Geographic Zone 2008 2020 2035
Local Area 1.60 1.92 2.15
Subregional Area 0.98 1.13 1.14
Regional Area 1.33 1.30 1.29
a Job/Housing Ratio is calculated by dividing the employment and housing forecasted number.

Source: PCR Services Corporation based on data presented in Table 18 of the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS projections, April 2012.

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-4
(4) Job/Housing Ratio
A jobs-housing balance is the distribution of employment relative to the distribution of workers within a given geographic area. A job/housing ratio of 1:1 indicates that there is a job for every one household. As such, for ratios below 1.0, those areas are considered to have jobs deficit and housing surplus, or “housing- rich”. For ratios above 1.0, those areas are considered to have a job surplus, or “job-rich” and a housing deficit. As identified by SCAG, the ideal average job/housing ratio in the SCAG region is 1.25.

As shown above for the year 2008, the local area of the City has a job/housing ratio of 1.60, the subregional area of Western Riverside has a ratio of 0.98, and the regional area of SCAG has a ratio of 1.33. Within the local area, the job/housing ratio is expected to increase from 1.60 to 2.15 between 2008 and 2035 and will be considered “job rich” with a housing deficit above the ideal 1.25 job/housing ratio. The subregional area’s job/housing ratio is also expected to increase from 2008 to 2035 with a job/housing ratio of 0.98 to 1.14 and will also be considered “job rich” but below the ideal SCAG ratio. The job/housing ratio for the SCAG regional area will decrease, but remains close to the ideal SCAG ratio of 1.25. As population continues to increase in the local, subregional, and regional geographic zones, employment demands will be met as there will be a job surplus, but new houses will need to be built to meet the future housing demands and meet the ideal average job/housing ratio of 1.25 as identified by SCAG.
c. Regulatory Framework
(1) Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) The Project is located within the jurisdiction of SCAG. SCAG is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Pursuant to federal and state law, SCAG serves as a Council of Governments, a Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and the MPO for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG’s mandated responsibilities include developing plans and policies with respect to the region’s population growth, transportation programs, air quality, housing, and economic development. Specifically, SCAG is responsible for preparing the RTP/SCS and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”), in coordination with other state and local agencies. These documents include population, employment, and housing projections for the region and 14 subregions. The project site is located within the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”) subregion (“Riverside County subregion”).
(2) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS: Towards a Sustainable Future. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region, which is composed of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is the culmination of a multi- year effort involving stakeholders from across the SCAG Region, and includes short- and long-range population, housing, and employment projections for local, subregional, and regional geographies that are utilized for regional planning efforts.