Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-5
(3) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”)
A RHNA, most recently adopted and approved by the SCAG Regional Council on October 4, 2012, includes an assessment of regional housing needs for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate income groups for the planning period from January 2014 through June 2021.1 The RHNA is used by local communities to address land use planning, prioritize local resource allocation, and decide how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth. As shown in Table 4.K-2, there are 44,600 housing units in the City as of 2008. According to the RHNA, the housing needs for the City include a total of 770 additional dwelling units, of which 192 will be very low income, 128 low income, 142 moderate income, and 308 above moderate income housing; refer to Table 4.K-4, Regional Housing Growth Needs of the City of Corona. (4) City of Corona General Plan Housing Element 2014-2021 State law requires housing elements to be updated at least every five years to reflect a community’s changing housing needs. The City of Corona Housing element was last updated in 2013; however, special legislation extended the update cycle for jurisdictions within SCAG to coincide with the 2012 update of baseline population, employment, and other shared data for the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Housing Element is updated for the years 2013-2021 for the update cycle for jurisdictions in the SCAG region and is consistent with other regional and local plans. The City of Corona Final Housing Element 2014-2021 is comprised of the following major components:

An analysis of Corona’s population, household, and employment base, and the characteristics of the City’s housing stock to define the nature and extent of unmet housing needs (Chapter 2).

A review of potential constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs (Chapter 3). An evaluation of resources and opportunities that will further the development of new housing and advance energy conservation in the community (Chapter 4).

A statement of the Housing Plan to address Corona’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs (Chapter 6).
1 Southern California Association of Governments website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf. Accessed May 2014.

Table 4.K-4
Regional Housing Growth Needs of the City of Corona
Very Low
Income Households
Low
Income Households
Moderate
Income Households
Above Moderate
Income Households
Total
Households
192 128 142 308 770

25.0% 16.6% 18.4% 40.0% 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-6

2. PROJECT IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The population, housing, and employment analysis consists of a comparison of the project’s proposed development and estimated population, housing, and employment to the expected forecasted SCAG projections for the years 2008 through 2035 for the three geographic areas. The analysis addresses impacts at the local (“Corona”), subregional (“Western Riverside”), and regional (“SCAG”) areas. The analysis also evaluates the project’s estimated population, housing, and employment and its compatibility with SCAG projections and related policies applicable to the project area. b. Significance Thresholds
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 population, housing, and employment. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to population, housing, and employment would occur if the proposed project would result in one or more of the following:

Threshold 1: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (refer to Impact Statement 4.K-1);
Threshold 2: Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (refer to Impact Statement 4.K-1.); Threshold 3: Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (refer to Impact Statement 4.K-1.); and Threshold 4: Comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement 4.K-2). c. Project Design Features
The proposed project would introduce 292 single-family detached residential dwellings that would provide new housing opportunities to the local, subregional and regional areas. d. Analysis of Project Impacts
Threshold Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-7
Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact 4.K-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population, housing, or employment growth in the project area beyond that anticipated by SCAG projections. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. These impacts are considered less than significant. (1) Construction Impacts
The proposed project would generate construction workers during the demolition, grading and excavation, and building construction and finishing phases. However, project construction would not necessarily generate new employment within the region. Rather, construction workers move from project to project and are somewhat mobile. To the extent that the proposed project would support and contribute to the pool of construction workers, the overall impacts of project implementation would be considered beneficial. Since construction activities related to the proposed project would not exceed expected growth nor alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of construction employment through the local, subregional, and regional area, construction-related employment impacts would be less than significant. (2) Operational Impacts
(a) Population Growth
The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes that would generate a population of approximately 1,028 residents.2 The residential population increase to the City associated with the proposed project is compared to the expected population increase for the years between 2008 and 2035 in the local, subregional, and regional areas. Table 4.K-5, Proposed Project Population, Household, and Employment Impacts Between the Years of 2008 and 2035, below, shows the project’s population increase in relation to the three geographic areas. The increase of 1,028 residents to the City would represent a total of

6.193 percent, 0.086 percent, and 0.024 percent of the population growth projected by SCAG for the local, subregional, and regional areas, respectively, between the years of 2008 and 2035.

As shown above, these percent increases do not exceed the forecasted growth set forth by SCAG. In addition, the project population growth would not substantially alter the location or growth rate of the population projected and forecasted for the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and SCAG region. By adding new housing units to the general housing supply, the Project would support applicable housing policies of the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and housing allocation goals of the RHNA, and would substantially help meet the housing demands of the growing population of the City by contributing to housing availability and opportunity in the project area. As such, the proposed project would not result in a significant population impact. 2
The average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed May 2014. 292 single family homes X 3.52 persons = 1,028 persons.

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-8
Although project implementation would result in the removal of two existing single-family homes, it would not displace substantial numbers of people, since such removal would be limited to approximately seven persons3, if both residences are occupied, which would be offset by the future provision of up to 1,028 persons on-site. As such, impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, would be considered less than significant. (b) Household Growth
As presented in Table 4.K-5, the proposed project would represent 6.952 percent, 0.071 percent, and 0.019 percent of household growth projected by SCAG for the local, subregional, and regional areas between the years of 2008 and 2035, respectively. The demand of additional housing units is well within the SCAG housing growth projections for the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and the SCAG region. By creating new housing units within the project area, the proposed project would support applicable housing policies of SCAG’s RTP/SCS and housing allocation goals of the RHNA, and would substantially help meet the housing demands of the growing population of the City. As such, impacts related to housing growth would be considered less than significant. Although project implementation would result in the removal of two existing single-family homes, it would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, since such removal would be limited to two housing units that would be offset by the future provision of up to 292 single-family homes on-site, or 290 net new housing units. As such, impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing house, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, would be considered less than significant. 3 The average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed May 2014. 2 single family homes X 3.52 persons = 7.04 persons.

Table 4.K-5
Proposed Project Population, Household, and Employment Impacts Between the Years of 2008 and 2035
Populationa Project
Percent of
Growth b
(%) Household a Project
Percent of
Growth b
(%)
Employment a Project
Percent of
Growth b
(%)
Net New from Proposed Project 1,028 c 292d N/Ae Local Area 16,600 +6.193 4,200 +6.952 33,800 N/A Subregional Area 1,196,000 +0.086 413,000 +0.071 579,000 N/A Regional Area 4,196,000 +0.024 1,511,000 +0.019 1,703,000 N/A a The local, subregional, and regional area numbers represent the 2008-2035 growth projections as provided in Table 4.K-2 above. b Percent difference calculated by dividing the project’s net new growth by the 2008-2035 growth projections. c The average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed May 2014. 292 single-family homes X 3.52 persons = 1,028 persons. d The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes. e The project proposes residential uses, thus resulting in no direct employment.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014 and SCAG, 2012.

December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-9
(c) Employment Growth
The proposed project would generate up to 292 single-family homes. Thus, project implementation would not directly generate new job opportunities to the City. As shown above in Table 4.K-3, the local area, subregional area, and regional area would be considered “job rich” with a housing deficit that would not meet the ideal 1.25 job/housing ratio. As population continues to increase in the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and the SCAG region, employment demands would be met as there would be a job surplus, but new homes would 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. The proposed would introduce up to 292 residential units, which would be able to provide housing for residents and help make up for the high job/housing ratio within the City. As such, impacts associated with employment growth would be less than significant.

Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.K-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code). This impact is considered less than significant.

The City of Corona General Plan (2004) Housing Element and Final Housing Element 2013-2021 (2012) includes goals and policies that relate to housing. An analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with each of the applicable goals contained in the Housing Element is presented below in Table 4.K-6, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated in Table 4.K-6, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals of the General Plan Housing Element with respect to population, housing, and employment.

As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase in the City’s residential population by approximately 1,028 persons and housing stock by up to 292 single-family homes. The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative development within the project vicinity would result in a cumulative increase in population, housing, and employment. Achieving the remaining RHNA units is expected through the future redevelopment of the key housing opportunity areas identified through the General Plan update process.

Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this Draft EIR provides a list of projects that are planned or are under construction in the proposed project study area and would potentially contribute to a cumulative population, housing, and employment impact when combined with the proposed project. Table 4.K-7, Cumulative Population, Housing, and Employment Generation, below, summarizes the cumulative growth associated with implementation of the proposed project and related projects.

As shown in Table 4.K-7, the cumulative population, housing, and employment projections total 21,927 residents, 6,229 housing units, and 4,301 employees, respectively. Relative to SCAG growth projections at the local, subregional, and regional levels for the 2008 to 2035 timeframe, this represents 132.1, 1.83, and

0.52 percent of overall population growth; 148.3, 1.51, and 0.41 percent of overall housing growth; and 12.8, 0.74, and 0.25 percent of overall employment growth, respectively. As such, cumulative growth associated

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-10
with the proposed project and related cumulative development in the project area is within SCAG’s 2008- 2035 growth projections at the subregional and regional levels, but would exceed the local projections for population and housing growth within the City of Corona. However, an exceedance of SCAG growth projections at the local level does not necessarily translate into a physical impact on the environment, as each particular development would be subject to environmental review by the City of Corona and conditioned through mitigation measures or alternatives to address any physical impacts related to such growth. The proposed project would contribute to this growth by providing housing and associated population growth, but would not result in adverse physical impacts related to housing and population, and would also contribute to meeting the City’s RHNA requirements. As such, although the proposed project would, in conjunction with other related project development, contribute to an exceedance of SCAG population and housing growth projections at the local level (City of Corona), it would not result in a significant cumulative impact due to the lack of physical effects associated with anticipated growth, as physical effects would be addressed through mitigation measures and other mechanisms on a project-byproject basis, subject to approval by the City of Corona (i.e., all related projects are located within the City, and therefore would be subject to City environmental review).

The analysis above provides an assessment of project population, housing, and employment in comparison with local, subregional, and regional growth forecasts, which also accounts for planned or reasonably foreseeable development within each jurisdiction in the local area, subregional area, and regional area.

Therefore, the analysis is both a project-level and cumulative analysis. As stated above, the increase of indirect population and housing, and direct employment associated with the proposed project would be within the forecasted population, housing, and employment projections for the Western Riverside subregional area and larger SCAG region, but would exceed projections at the local level for population and housing growth. Furthermore, cumulative development, similar to the proposed project, would also be required to support applicable policies provided by SCAG and the City of Corona General Plan. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with Table 4.K-6
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable Goals/Policies/Programs Project Consistency Statement Goal 3.1 – Promote and maintain a balance of housing
types and corresponding affordability levels to provide for the community’s demands for housing within all
economic segments of the City.

Consistent. The proposed project would generate up
to 292 single-family homes. By adding new housing
units to the general housing supply, the Project would
support applicable housing policies of the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and housing allocation goals of
the RHNA, and would help meet the housing demands of
the growing population of the City by contributing to
housing availability and opportunity in the project area.

Policy 3.3.1 – Provide public services and
improvements that enhance and create neighborhood
stability.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.L. Public Services.

Source: City of Corona General Plan (2004) Housing Element and Final Housing Element 2013-2021 and PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-11 Table 4.K-7
Cumulative Population, Housing, and Employment Generation Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(acres)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 12.25 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11-006) - - - - - - 2.15 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09-004) - - 1.69 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760, Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06-009)
194 - - - - - - Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12-005) 453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10-017) 60 - - - - - - Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661, PP08- 001) 442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 76 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10-001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 0.89 4.06 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14-001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM 29503R, PP08-008)
- - 14.0 - - 14.0 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM 34890, PP06-006)
- - - 26.6 - - - Meridian Dos Lagos, LP (PM 34851, PP06-011) - - - 3.6 - - - Fu Bang Group (PM 33151, PP04-018) 92 - - - - - - Rexco Development (PP13-006) 354 - - - - - - Rexco Development - - - - - 29.0 - Arrantine Hills Specific Plan (SP09-001) 1,621 - 59.1 - - 18.6 -

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
Table 4.K-7 (Continued)
Cumulative Population, Housing, and Employment Generation City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-12 Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(acres)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
North Main Street District 404 - - - - - - Berzansky/PB Development - - - - 3.6 - - Westliving 112 - - - - - - Vulcan Materials - - - - - 100.0 - Sanre Corporation - - - - - 3.0 - Trammell Crow - - - - - 26.34 - Griffco Land LLC 125 - - - - - - Citrus Circle Apartments 42 - - - - - - Houman /Patel - - - 1.6 - - - ASTA /Strata 45 - - - - - - Subtotal Related Projects 4,864 0.89 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 Proposed Project 290 - - - - - - TOTAL 5,154 0.89 93.86 30.2 3.60 149.85 2.15 - Population (residents) 18,142 a 9 b 1,066b 650b 130 b 1,914 b 14b 21,927 Housing (units) 5,154 3 b 303 b 185 b 37 b 544 b 4b 6,229 Employment (employees) - 11c 1,212c 739 c 148 c 2,175 c 16 c 4,301 a
4,426 residential units X 3.52 persons per household = 15,580 persons (based on the average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed May 2014.) b Indirect housing growth is assumed to be one-quarter (25%) of employment growth, while indirect population growth is assumed to be one-quarter (25%) of employment multiplied by 3.52 persons per household. c
Project-related growth is based on 11.82 employees per acre of hotel; 12.91 employees per acre of retail; 23.25 employees per acre of office; 41.16 employees per acre of medical office; 7.79 employees per acre of industrial; 0.88 employees per acre of mining; and 7.46 employees per acre of middle schools per data presented in Table B-1 of the “Employment Density Study Summary Report”, prepared for SCAG by The Natelson Company (October 2001) for Riverside County. Assumes an FAR of 0.25 for commercial retail/restaurant and office uses and an FAR of 0.33 for Industrial uses.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015
December 2015 4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-13
population, housing, and employment and no mitigation measures are required. Further, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
All impacts related to population, housing, and employment would be less than significant; as such, no mitigation measures are required.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project-related and cumulative impacts associated with population, housing, and employment growth would be less than significant.

4.K. Population, Housing, and Employment December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.K-14
This page intentionally blank.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
L. PUBLIC SERVICES

INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project regarding public services including fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection and law enforcement services, parks and recreational services, schools, and library services that would serve the proposed project. Existing conditions and relevant regulations are described as well as the potential for the proposed project to impact public service facilities and the ability of the service providers to provide or maintain adequate services with implementation of the proposed project. Information in this section is based on correspondence with the City of Corona Fire Department (“CFD”), the City of Corona Police Department (“CPD”), the City of Corona Maintenance Services Department, the Corona-Norco Unified School District (“CNUSD”), and the City of Corona Public Library (“CPL”), a site-specific Radio Study prepared by Wavepoint Research, Inc. (“Wavepoint”) in September 2014, as well as information provided on the City’s website and in the City of Corona General Plan (“General Plan”) (2004), City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report (“Technical Background Report”) (2004), City of Corona General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (2004), the Santa Ana River Trail Master Plan (2011), the City of Corona Bicycle Master Plan (2001), and the CNUSD Facilities Needs Analysis (2012). Correspondence with the above-referenced agencies and the site- specific Radio Study are provided in Appendix J of this Draft EIR.

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
a. Existing Conditions
(1) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Fire protection and emergency medical services for both the City and the project site are provided by the CFD. The CFD deploys seven fire stations and staffs seven fire engines, one fire truck, one squad, and one battalion chief for a minimum daily staffing of 35 personnel. The fire engines and truck each have four personnel while the squad has two personnel and battalion chief with one.1 The proposed project is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (“VHFHSZ”) within a State Responsibility Area (“SRA”).2 The project site is located within the district of Fire Station 6. However, for multiple unit responses, Fire Stations 1 and 3 also provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. Further, a portion of the Project area and vicinity are covered by an aid agreement with the United States Forest Service (“USFS”), Riverside County Fire Department (“RCFD”), and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CAL FIRE”). Engine 6 is the first in responder with Engine 1, Engine 3, Truck 1, Squad 3, and Battalion Chief as back-up responders.3 Fire Station 1 (540 Magnolia Avenue), Fire Station 3 (790 S. Smith Avenue), and Fire Station 6 (110 W. Upper Drive) are located approximately 2.75 miles northeast, 2.75 miles north, and 1.7 miles east of the project site, respectively. The main access routes to the project site from Fires Stations 1, 3, and 6 are Upper Drive and Foothill Parkway. The CFD’s response time goal for the first in responder is six minutes, 90 percent of the time. For calendar year 2013, the average response time for Fire Station 6 was 1 Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014. 2 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Western Riverside County, adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. 3 Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-2
five minutes and 30 seconds. Upon project implementation, the CFD anticipates a similar average response time for Fire Station 6 for calendar year 2014.4 The incident types, incident counts, and average response times of Fire Stations 1, 3, and 6 are identified below in Table 4.L-1, Fire Incident Types, Counts, and Average Response Times.

The CFD is funded largely through the City’s General Fund, with other funding coming from tax revenue, fees for services, a fee charged to the local ambulance company, the emergency medical service subscription program, and developer impact fees charged to all new development which are used on facilities and equipment.5 Currently, there are no immediate or future plans for expansion of fire facilities, staff, or equipment inventory.6
(2) Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
Police protection and law enforcement services for both the City and the project site are provided by the CPD. The CPD is divided into three divisions within four police community/patrol zones: Field Services, Investigation Services, and Support Services. The CPD provides emergency police response, non-emergency police response, routine police patrol, crime investigation, offender apprehension, special response teams(i.e., SWAT), hostage negotiators, crime suppression teams, K9 teams trained in explosives/narcotics/missing persons, a traffic enforcement bureau, school resource officers, mounted patrol for special events, community awareness programs, and animal control. All patrol investigation and support services operate from the City’s main police station located at 730 Public Safety Way (previously named “Corporation Yard Way”), approximately 4.7 miles north of the project site. The project site is directly accessible from the main station with major roadways.7 In addition to the main station, the Zone 2 office, located at 340 N. McKinley Street, provides a satellite office for field officers. The Temescal Public Safety Facility, located at 3777 Bedford Canyon Road, is a joint CPD and CFD facility that includes living quarters, office facilities, and an apparatus garage.

The CPD staffing consists of 159 full-time sworn officers, 65 full-time civilian personnel, and 35 part-time personnel for a total of 259 employees with 59 patrol vehicles. The CPD averages 16 patrol officers on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week with approximately 40 to 50 administrative and investigation staff available within the police station during normal business hours. The project site is located within police community/patrol zone 4 (“Zone 4”), which is roughly south of the State Route 91 (“SR-91”) Freeway, Main Street to the east, and the City boundary to the west. Zone 4 is 10.28 square miles and possesses approximately one-quarter of the City’s total population of 158,391 people. Zone 4 is patrolled by multiple police units with a minimum two units configured to patrol and remain within the zone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Additional available units consist of roving units, traffic units, supervisors, and other specialized units. Police staffing is always under review and evaluated in order to maintain the sworn 4 Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014. 5 Arantine Hills Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by LSA, dated May 9, 2012. 6 Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014. 7 Captain Jerry Rodriguez, Investigative Services Commander, Email correspondence, dated March 3, 2014.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-3
officers to population ratio, maintaining an emergency response within five minutes or less, and retaining adequate officer availability.8 The CPD has a goal of responding to priority 1 (emergency) calls in five 8 Captain Jerry Rodriguez, Investigative Services Commander, Email correspondence, dated March 3, 2014.

Table 4.L-1
Fire Incident Types, Counts, and Average Response Times CFD Fire Station 1
Incident Type Incident Count
Average Response Times
(MM:SS)
Fire 55 05:44
Rupture/Explosion 2 06:47
EMS/Rescue 2,230 05:41
Hazardous Condition 19 06:39
Service Call 308 06:03
Good Intent 235 05:32
False Call 57 06:49
Total: 2,906 05:44
CFD Fire Station 3
Incident Type Incident Count
Average Response Times
(MM:SS)
Fire 80 05:46
Rupture/Explosion 2 06:09
EMS/Rescue 1,350 05:25
Hazardous Condition 26 06:45
Service Call 108 06:25
Good Intent 212 05:40
False Call 58 07:20
Total: 1,836 05:35
CFD Fire Station 6
Incident Type Incident Count
Average Response Times
(MM:SS)
Fire 25 06:36
Rupture/Explosion 1 06:20
EMS/Rescue 830 05:22
Hazardous Condition 14 07:49
Service Call 52 06:13
Good Intent 66 06:14
False Call 21 06:39
Totals: 1,009 05:30
Notes: EMS = emergency medical services; MM:SS = minutes: seconds.

Source: Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-4
minutes or less and 90 percent of the time, four minutes or less. In 2013, the CPD emergency response time average was five minutes and 11 seconds with 90 percent of the response times at four minutes and six seconds. For priority 2 (non-emergency) calls the response time was 13 minutes and 42 seconds. Currently, the CPD’s goal for emergency response times is met. The planned extension of Foothill Boulevard to the west side of the City is anticipated to enhance the flow of traffic creating increased access and response of police units to the entire area. However, the CPD continually researches and examines ways to improve response times and services.9
Law enforcement services within the City are funded through a variety of sources including tax revenues, penalties, service fees, development impact fees, asset forfeiture funds, traffic offender funds, the General Fund, and various grants. Grants include Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (“SLESF”), COPS grants, the Edward Byrne JAG Grant, and the Office of Traffic Safety grants. Impact fees are updated on a regular basis and are intended to accommodate an adequate level of police service within the City.10 (3) Parks and Recreational Services
The City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department provides community services and recreational and leisure time opportunities for both the City and the project site. Additionally, the Maintenance Services Department maintains approximately 393 acres of developed parkland within the City.11 The existing ratio of developed parkland per resident on a City-wide bases is 0.00248 acres.12 A number of parks are located within the vicinity of the project site. The four nearest parks are classified as neighborhood parks, which would typically serve the neighborhood population of which they are located.

The nearest community park, which would likely serve the proposed project, Mountain Gate Park, is located approximately 1.4 miles east of the project site.13 Refer below to Table 4.L-2, Existing Parks Near the Project Site, for parks located near the project site and a summary of their park classification, size, location, amenities/activities and approximate distance/direction from the project site.

School recreation facilities are often open to the public during non-school hours. Typically, elementary schools provide additional recreation opportunities to surrounding neighborhoods, while junior high schools and high schools provide additional community-wide facilities. Formal agreements for general public use of school facilities have been made by the City and the CNUSD. Under these agreements, swimming pools and summer aquatics programs have been made available to the public. Other existing recreational resources within the City include community centers, multipurpose recreation centers, a senior center, several tennis courts, two skate parks, a gymnasium facility, and an auditorium within the City Hall Civic Center. Further, residents within the City have access to the nearby Cleveland National Forest, Chino Hills State Park, 9 Captain Jerry Rodriguez, Investigative Services Commander, Email correspondence, dated March 3, 2014. 10 Arantine Hills Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by LSA, dated May 9, 2012. 11 Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 12 393 acres of developed parkland/158,391 residents = 0.00248 acres of developed parkland per resident per Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 13 Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-5
Featherly Regional Park, Prado Regional Park, Prado Basin, Santa Ana River Wildlife Area, Santa Ana River Trail (“SART”), and the Wardlow Wash which all provide regional facilities and recreational opportunities.14 Existing bike facilities located within the vicinity of the project site include Class II bikeway facilities located on Foothill Parkway east of Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln Avenue north of Foothill Parkway. Proposed bike facilities located within the vicinity of the project site include Class I bikeway facilities on Skyline Drive south of Foothill Parkway; Class II bikeway facilities on Foothill Parkway west of Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln Avenue south of Foothill Parkway; and Class III bikeway facilities on Mangular Avenue north of Foothill Parkway.15 Class I bikeway facilities are referred to as bike paths that provide a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by motorists minimized. Class II bikeway facilities are referred to as bike lanes that provide a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street 14 City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report, prepared by EIP Associates, adopted March 2004. 15 City of Corona Bicycle Master Plan and Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map, prepared by Alta Transportation Consulting and Ryan Snyder Associates, dated May 31, 2001.

Table 4.L-2
Existing Parks Near the Project Site
Name
Type of
Park/Size Location Parks Amenities/Activities
Approximate
Distance/Direction
from project sitea Border
Park
Neighborhood
(2.28 acres)
2400
Boarder
Avenue
Tennis court, volleyball court, children’s play
equipment, barbecue area, drinking fountains,
ADA accessible

1.00 miles north
Mangular
Park
Neighborhood
(3.63 acres)
2200
Mangular
Avenue
Tennis court, children’s play equipment, and
drinking fountain 1.05 miles north
Ontario
Park
Neighborhood
(5.17 acres)
Ontario &
Via Pacifica
Softball field, basketball court, jogging course,
children’s play equipment, barbecue and picnic
area, covered shelter, bicycle racks, restrooms,
and drinking fountains

1.15 miles northeast
Buena
Vista Park
Neighborhood
(9.48 acres)
2515 Buena
Vista
Avenue
Softball field, children’s play equipment,
barbecue and picnic area, covered shelter,
restrooms, drinking fountains, ADA accessible

1.25 miles northeast
Mountain
Gate Park
Community
(21.07 acres)
3100 S.

Main Street
Softball field, tennis court, basketball court,
jogging course, children’s play equipment,
barbecue and picnic area, covered shelter,
bicycle racks, restrooms, and drinking fountains

1.4 miles east a Approximate distance/direction from project site in miles is a straight line distance, not a drive distance.

Source: Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014.; City of Corona Parks and Community Website, http://www.coronadwp.com/parkmaint/parksfacilities.shtml, accessed March 2014; PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-6
or highway. Class III bikeway facilities are referred to as bike routes that provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and are only identified by signage.16 (4) Schools
The CNUSD, kindergarten through twelfth grade (“K-12”), serves the City of Corona, the City of Norco, the City of Eastvale, the City of Jurupa Valley, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County, and the project site. The CNUSD operates 31 elementary schools, eight intermediate schools, five comprehensive high schools, and three alternative high schools.17 Student enrollment in the CNUSD tabulated for the 2012/13 school year was approximately 27,686 elementary school students, 8,529 intermediate schools students, and 17,641 high school students for a total enrolment of 53,856 students. A comparison of current and projected student enrollment to current capacity demonstrates that the CNUSD is still impacted at the intermediate school level but has some additional capacity to accommodate students from new residential development at both the elementary and high school levels.18 The project site is located within the attendance boundaries of Adams Elementary School, Raney Intermediate School, and the Corona High School.19 The Adams Elementary School is located at 2350 Border Avenue, approximately 1.50 miles north of the project site. The Raney Intermediate School is located at 1010 West Citron Street, approximately two miles northeast of the project site. The Corona High School is located 1150 W. 10th Street, approximately 2.50 miles northeast of the project site.
(5) Library Services
The CPL provides library services to the City and the project site. The CPL is the City’s only library branch while 13 libraries are located within the Riverside County Library System. The CPL is located at 650 South Main Street, approximately 2.84 miles northeast of the project site. The 62,000 square-foot CPL includes 40 staff members, a 170,440 item collection, computers, passport services, private study rooms, and free wireless fidelity (“Wi-Fi”). The CPL has 85,856 total borrowers of which are both residents and non- residents. Hours of operation include Monday thru Wednesday, 10:00 A.M-9:00 P.M., Thursday and Friday 10:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M., Saturday 12:00 P.M.-5:00 P.M. and closed on Sundays.20 b. Regulatory Framework
(1) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
(a) California Fire Code (“CFC”), 2010, California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), Title 24, Part 9 The CCR Title 24 (California Building Code [“CBC”]) is a compilation of building standards including fire safety standards for residential and commercial buildings. CBC standards are based on building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from a national model code; building standards based on a national model code that have been changed to address particular California conditions; and 16 Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design, Topic 1001 – General Criteria, Section 1001.4 Definitions, June 26, 2006. 17 Nancy Baker, Facilities Supervisor, Corona-Norco Unified School District, Letter Correspondence, dated March 13, 2014. 18 Corona-Norco Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis, December 2012. 19 Nancy Baker, Facilities Supervisor, Corona-Norco Unified School District, Letter Correspondence, dated March 13, 2014. 20 Katherine Backus, Management Analyst, Corona Public Library, Letter Correspondence, dated February 27, 2014.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-7
building standards authorized by the California legislature, not covered by the national model code. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include: the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and, the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas. The CBC applies to all occupancies in California, except where more stringent standards have been adopted by local agencies. Specific CBC fire safety regulations have been incorporated by reference in the City of Corona Municipal Code (“CMC”). Chapter 7 of the CBC is incorporated by reference in Chapter 15.12 of the CMC regarding the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire suppression systems, and other fire safety elements related to the design and construction of buildings.

Chapter 9, Section 905 of the CBC is incorporated by reference in Chapter 15.12 of the CMC regarding fire protection systems.
(b) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.12, Fire Code As set forth in Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.12, Fire Code of the CMC, the City has adopted and incorporated by reference into the CMC the International Fire Code (“IFC”) 2009 Edition and the CFC 2010 Edition, collectively referred to by the City as the “Fire Code”. All of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms referring to the CFC also pertain to the Fire Code for the City of Corona. (c) 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.
(d) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Police and Fire Services
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Police and Fire Services, of the City of Corona General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming fire personnel and facilities within the City. (2) Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
(a) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Police and Fire Services
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Police and Fire Services, of the City of Corona General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming police personnel and facilities within the City. (3) Parks and Recreational Services
(a) Quimby Act
Section 66477 of the California Government Code (“CGC”), also known as the Quimby Act, was enacted by the California legislature in 1965 to promote the availability of park and open space areas in response to

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-8
California’s rapid urbanization and the need to preserve open space and provide parks and recreation facilities in response to this urbanization. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees for park and/or recreational facilities in lieu thereof, or both, by developers of residential subdivisions as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. Under the Quimby Act, dedications of land shall not exceed three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, and in-lieu fee payments shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of parkland, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community parkland exceeds that limit. Thus, Chapter 16.35 of the CMC was enacted to ensure compliance with the Quimby Act as discussed below.
(b) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 16, Subdivisions, Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees
Title 16, Subdivisions, Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees of the CMC, sets forth park and open space requirements and standards for determining park land dedication requirements as well as impact fees to provide residents with adequate open space. As stated in Section 16.35.060, land dedication, impact fees or a combination of both may be required so that three acres of park area are available for every 1,000 residents.
(c) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries, of the City of Corona General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to programming parks and recreational services within the City. (4) Schools
(a) California Department of Education (“CDE”)
The CDE administers California’s public education system at the State level and the State Board of Education, by statute, is the governing and policy-determining body of the CDE. The Board adopts rules and regulations for the governing of the State’s public schools. The State also provides funding through a combination of sales and income taxes. In addition, pursuant to Proposition 98, the State is also responsible for the allocation of educational funds that are acquired from property taxes. Further, the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.21
(b) School Facility Act – Development Fees – Assembly Bill 2926 (“AB 2926”) – Senate Bill (“SB 50”) AB 2926 was enacted in 1986 by the State of California and added to the CGC as Section 65995. This Act authorized school districts to collect development fees for certain types of projects based on demonstrated need and generates revenue for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also establishes the maximum fees, adjustable for inflation, which may be collected under this Act. SB 50 subsequently revised the School Facilities Act by defining the Needs Analysis process in Sections 65995.5-65998 of the CGC, by allowing 21 California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1).

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-9
school districts to collect fees higher than previously permitted to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs as a result of new development. Developer fees for projects within the CNUSD boundaries are approved by the Board of Education and collected at the time of issuance of building permits. (c) Critically Overcrowded School Facilities Program – Assembly Bill (“AB 16”) In 2002, AB 16 created the Critically Overcrowded School Facilities program, which supplements the new construction provisions within the School Facilities Program (“SFP”). SFP provides State funding assistance for two major types of facility construction projects: new construction and modernization. The Critically Overcrowded School Facilities program allows school districts with critically overcrowded school facilities, as determined by the CDE, to apply for new construction projects in advance of meeting all SFP new construction program requirements. Districts with SFP new construction eligibility and school sites included on a CDE list of source schools may apply.
(d) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries, of the City of Corona General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to schools within the City. (5) Library Services
(a) City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 16, Subdivisions, Chapter 16.23, Development Impact Fees Section 16.23.080 of the CMC identifies the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan which requires development impact fees to be charged to new development to maintain current levels of service to the City.
(b) City of Corona General Plan (2004) – Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries
Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services, Parks, Schools, and Libraries, of the City of Corona General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to libraries within the City.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
(1) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Fire protection and emergency medical service needs relate to the size of the population and geographic area served, the number and types of calls for service, and the characteristics of the community and the proposed project. Changes in these factors resulting from the proposed project may increase the demand for services.

The CFD evaluates the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services on a project-by-project basis to review a project’s emergency features and to determine if a proposed project would require additional equipment, personnel, new facilities, or alterations to existing facilities. Beyond the standards included in the CFC and the Fire Code, consideration is given to the size of the proposed project, uses proposed, fire flow necessary to accommodate the proposed project, response time, distance for engine and

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-10
truck companies, fire hydrant sizing and placement standards, access, and the project’s potential to use or store hazardous materials. Based on these factors, a determination is made as to whether the CFD would require a new or physically altered facility to maintain current service levels, the construction of which could result in a potentially significant environmental impact. (2) Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
The determination of significance relative to impacts on police protection and law enforcement services is based on the ability of the CPD to adequately serve the existing and future population. Based on these criteria, a determination was made as to whether police facilities could accommodate the additional demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project without the need for a new facility or the alteration of existing facilities.
(3) Parks and Recreational Services
The analysis identifies park and recreational facilities and resources within the project area, identifies the approximate net population growth that would result from the proposed project, and provides a conclusion regarding the effects of the proposed project on park and recreational facilities and resources based on the proximity of the project site to designated recreational facilities and the project’s potential contribution to demand for future facilities.
(4) Schools
The analysis of enrollment effects on schools is based in part on the ability of CNUSD school facilities to accommodate the potential increase in students generated from development of the proposed project. The analysis estimates the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project using CNUSD student generation rates, and focuses on whether CNUSD school facilities expected to serve the proposed project would have sufficient available capacity to accommodate these students. The analysis addresses all levels of education facilities operated by the CNUSD (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools); and focuses on the schools that would serve the project site. It also addresses state regulations, i.e. SB 50, and related development fees as a mechanism for providing new school facilities and addressing school impacts of the proposed project.
(5) Library Services
Potential project impacts on library services and facilities are determined based on identifying the primary service library or libraries that serve the project site, forecasting the number of residents generated by the proposed project, identifying the population within the library’s service area at the time of project buildout, combining the project’s resident population with the forecasted service area population, and comparing the combined population to the service population for the library as determined by CPL. 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 public services. Based on the following issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact relative to public services would occur if the project would result in the following:

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-11
Threshold 1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-1 below); Police Protection (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-2 below); Parks (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-3 below);
Schools (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-4 below);
Other public facilities (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-5 below). Threshold 2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-3 below); Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (refer to Impact Statement 4.L-3 below); or
Threshold 4: Comply with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement

4.L-6 below).
c. Project Design Features
Future development pursuant to the proposed project would comply with applicable State and local codes and building requirements related to fire safety and access for emergency vehicles in order to provide an adequate degree of fire and police protection services through proper design and to allow for acceptable response times for fire, police, and emergency medical services. Water infrastructure within the project area would also be constructed and improved as necessary to meet the minimum fire flow requirements of the CFD. The proposed project would further comply with all applicable State and local regulations related to parks and recreation services, schools, and library services.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-12
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?
Impact 4.L-1 Implementation of the proposed project could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

The proposed project would introduce 292 single-family detached residential dwellings that would generate an additional 1,028 persons.22 As described in the Existing Conditions section above, the CFD provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the project site. The project site is located within the district of Fire Station 6. However, for multiple unit responses, Fire Stations 1 and 3 also provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. Fire Stations 1, 3, and 6, are located approximately 2.75 miles northeast, 2.75 miles north, and 1.7 miles east of the project site, respectively. Due to the close vicinity to multiple stations, the response time to the project site would be within the CFD’s response time goals for the first in responder of six minutes, 90 percent of the time. For calendar year 2013, the average response time for Fire Station 6 was five minutes and 30 seconds. Upon project implementation, the CFD anticipates a similar average response time for Fire Station 6 for calendar year 2014.23 The proposed project is located within a VHFHSZ within a SRA.24 Per the CFD, a fuel modification plan for the proposed project is required.25 Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, discusses the potential for impacts associated with wildland fires. Section 4.G provides a detailed discussion of the fuel modification zones proposed by the project, each of which would be designed specifically to help suppress a wildland fire in different ways. As discussed in Section 4.G, 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. As importantly, because the existing project site is not maintained as a fuel modification area and consists of uncontrolled wild land 22 The average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed May 2014. 292 single family homes X 3.52 persons = 1,028 persons. 23 Cindi Schmitz, CFD, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014. 24 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Western Riverside County, adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. 25 Cindi Schmitz, Corona Fire Department, Email correspondence, dated February 27, 2014.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-13
vegetation, existing single-family residences to the north, northeast, and east of the project 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. Please also refer to the discussion of impacts related to wildland fire hazards provided in Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR.

As required by the CFD, 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 roadways designed to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; minimum driveway and fire lane width of 28 feet; minimum turning radii of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside; grades not to exceed ten percent; adequate on-site space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing minimum of 300 feet, and fire hydrant locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; minimum availability of firefighting water flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (“gpm”) at 20 pounds per square inch (“psi”) for two hours; and building materials compliant with the CBC Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure (Mitigation Measure PS-1).26 As described in the Project Design Features section above, water infrastructure within the project area would be constructed and improved as necessary to meet the minimum fire flow requirements of the CFD.

The ability of the water service provider to provide water supply to the project site is further discussed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR. Conformance with these development/construction requirements and implementation of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures reduces the risks associated with fire hazards.

No new fire protection facilities would be necessary as a result of project implementation.27 The CFD is funded largely through the City’s General Fund, with other funding coming from tax revenue, fees for services, a fee charged to the local ambulance company, the emergency medical service subscription program, and developer impact fees charged to all new development which are used on facilities and equipments.28 To further ensure that the provision of fire and emergency medical services is not eroded by future development, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant 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 for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD (Mitigation Measure PS-2). These fees would be utilized to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new fire stations, constructing new fire stations, purchasing fire equipment for new fire stations, and providing for additional staff as needed and as identified by the City and CFD.

As such, the incremental increase of 1,028 persons, when compared to the City’s population of approximately 158,391 people, would not be substantial enough to significantly impact fire and emergency medical services on a daily or annual basis. Overall, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements of the CFC, the CMC/Fire Code, the CFD, and implementation of the project design features and prescribed 26 Cindi Schmitz, Corona Fire Department, Email correspondence, dated February 27, 2014. 27 Ibid. 28 Arantine Hills Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by LSA, dated May 9, 2012.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-14
mitigation measures, impacts related to fire protection and emergency medical services and facilities would be less than significant impact.
(2) Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Police Protection?
Impact 4.L-2 Implementation of the proposed project could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection and law enforcement services. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

As described above in the Existing Conditions section, the project site is serviced by the CPD within Zone 4.

The City’s main police station is located at 730 Public Safety Way, approximately 4.7 miles north of the project site. The CPD staffing consists of 159 full-time sworn officers, 65 full-time civilian personnel, and 35 part-time personnel for a total of 259 employees with 59 patrol vehicles. Police staffing is always under review and evaluated in order to maintain the sworn officers to population ratio, maintaining an emergency response within five minutes or less, and retaining adequate officer availability. Currently, the CPD’s goal for emergency response times is met.29 As described in the Project Design Features section above, the proposed project provides development standards regulating vehicular circulation including emergency vehicle access.

With development of the site, patrol routes in the area would be slightly modified to include the project site; however, the CPD’s current adequate response times would not be substantially changed such that response time objectives are comprised in any manner.30 In 2013, Zone 4 had priority 1 response times averaging six minutes and three seconds with 90 percent of the response times at five minutes. Upon project implementation, response times to the project site should be within the Zone 4 response time goals.31 Further, the planned extension of Foothill Boulevard to the west side of the City is anticipated to enhance the flow of traffic creating increased access and response of police units to the entire area.32 As required by the CPD, the project Applicant shall be required to set aside land within the project site that would allow CPD, if determined to be necessary in the future, to construct an on-site radio facility site for increased police protection.
29 Captain Jerry Rodriguez, Investigative Services Commander, Email correspondence, dated March 3, 2014 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-15
A site-specific radio study was prepared for the proposed project by Wavepoint in September 2014.33 The objectives of the radio study were to (1) assess the current coverage of the Corona public safety radio system based on the existing tower/antenna locations, (2) predict coverage in the proposed Skyline Heights development area for purposes of determining the potential requirement to improve coverage in said area by installing an additional communications site, and (3) provide coverage maps and assist the Applicant in technical discussions with the Corona radio system operators. The radio study analysis used conservative configuration parameters and also modeled worst-case (weakest) signal strength from each site. The results of the study show that the existing radio tower sites within the City of Corona’s Public Safety radio system provide adequate coverage to the proposed area of the Skyline Heights development. As such, CPD radio communications are anticipated to be maintained throughout the project site and surrounding area without the need for an on-site radio tower facility. However, as required by Mitigation Measure PS-3, below, the project Applicant would be required to set aside a portion of the project site, the size and location of which would be subject to review and approval by the CPD, for construction of such a radio tower facility should CPD determine that one is necessary in the future.

The CPD’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties, service fees, and allowed government assistance including the General Fund, development impact fees, asset forfeiture funds, traffic offender funds, and various grants.34 To further ensure that the provision of police protection and law enforcement services are not eroded by future development, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees to the City for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD (Mitigation Measure PS-4). These fees would be utilized to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new police facilities, constructing new police facilities, and providing for additional staff as needed and as identified by the City and CPD.

As such, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements of the CPD, and implementation of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures, impacts related to police protection and law enforcement services would be less than significant.
(3) Parks and Recreational Services
Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Parks?
32 Ibid. 33 Wavepoint Research, Inc., “Analysis of Corona, California Public Safety Radio Sites Coverage Predictions – Skyline Heights Development,” September 30, 2014. Included in Appendix J of this Draft EIR. 34 Arantine Hills Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by LSA, dated May 9, 2012.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-16
Threshold Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact 4.L-3 Implementation of the proposed project could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives parks and recreational facilities. Further, the proposed project could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated, and the proposed project could include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the project design features and prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

As described above in the Existing Conditions section, the City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department provides community services and recreational and leisure time opportunities for the project site. The department maintains approximately 393 acres of developed parkland within the City.35 The proposed project would generate an additional 1,028 residents, which would incrementally increase demand for park and recreational facilities in the project vicinity. A number of parks are located within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest community park, which would likely serve the proposed project, Mountain Gate Park, is located approximately 1.4 miles east of the project site.36 The Mountain Gate Park is currently heavily used.37 Existing bike facilities located within the vicinity of the project site include Class II bikeway facilities located on Foothill Parkway east of Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln Avenue north of Foothill Parkway.38 As described above, the City has a total of 393 acres of developed parkland.39 The existing ratio of developed parkland per resident on a City-wide bases is 0.00248 acres.40 The City has a recommended standard of 3.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, or 0.00350 acres per resident.41,42 Therefore, an estimated total of 35 Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 36
Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 City of Corona Bicycle Master Plan and Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map, prepared by Alta Transportation Consulting and Ryan Snyder Associates, dated May 31, 2001. 39 Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 40 393 acres of developed parkland/158,391 residents = 0.00248 acres of developed parkland per resident per Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 41 Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014. 42 3.5 acres/1,000 persons = 0.0035 acres per person.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-17
approximately 55443 acres of parklands are needed within the City to accommodate the City’s existing population of 158,391.44 Thus, this represents a parkland deficit of 161 acres.45 Since the Project would contribute new residents that would utilize City parks, impacts on City parks and recreational services are considered to be a potentially significant impact.

Three planned parks and recreation projects, Civic Center Gymnasium Improvements, Victoria Park Improvements ADA Interior Restroom Project, and the Butterfield Park Parking Lot Expansion would provide additional recreational opportunities.46 The Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District, the Cities of Corona and Norco, and the Jurupa Community Services District (“JCSD”) have entered a partnership to complete their portion of the regional Santa Ana River Trail which lies along the Santa Ana River between the downstream side of State Route 71 (“SR-71”) and the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area at the edge of the City of Riverside. Referred to as the Corona-Norco-Eastvale segment, it encompasses the Prado Dam and surrounding flood control basin, as well as the residential communities of Corona, Norco, and Eastvale. The construction of the trail would be divided into three phases with an estimated completion in the 2016-2020 time frame. The trail would be used by local pedestrians (i.e., exercise, walk the dog), long- distance walkers/runners, recreational equestrians, recreational bicyclists, and commuter bicyclists. The Santa Ana River Trail would provide the following amenities: a transportation hub, turn out and vista points, interpretative sites, parking for automobiles and equestrian rigs, overnight parking, bicycle racks, tie-ups for horses, horse corrals, equestrian centers, drinking water facilities for people and horses/dogs, shade trees or structures, regulatory signage, wayfinding signage, benches, trash cans, restrooms, and landscaping.47 Further, residents within the City, including the project site, have access to the nearby Cleveland National Forest, Chino Hills State Park, Featherly Regional Park, Prado Regional Park, Prado Basin, Santa Ana River Wildlife Area, Santa Ana River Trail (“SART”), and the Wardlow Wash which all provide regional facilities and recreational opportunities.48 Assuming the population increase of 1,028 residents at a 0.00350 acre City requirement per person (i.e., 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents); the proposed project would require that provision of approximately 3.6 acres of parkland. However, the proposed project is not proposing new park or recreational facilities. The City collects a park impact fee for residential projects which is used to fund the City’s park maintenance and improvement program. Thus, to mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impact and to ensure that the provision of parks and recreational services and facilities are not eroded by future development, the project Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees. The City’s tentative map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a tentative map (Mitigation Measure PS-5). As such, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements of the Municipal Code and implementation of the 43 158,391 persons/1,000 persons = 158.39 X 3.5 acres of parkland = 554.37 acres of needed parkland. 44 City of Corona Total Population (2011) per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed March 2014. 45 393 acres of developed parkland – 554 acres of needed parkland = 161 acres of parkland deficit. 46 The City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Website, Recently Completed, Current & Planned Projects, http://www.coronadwp.com/parkmaint/projects.shtml, accessed May 2014. 47 Santa Ana River Trail Master Plan, Corona-Eastvale-Norco Segment State Route 71 to Hidden Valley Wildlife Area, prepared by The Dangermond Group, WRC Consulting, Inc., Michael Brandman Associates, and Kammeyer and Associates, dated June 2011 and the City of Corona Online Services Website, Santa Ana River Trail Documents, http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/Parks- --Community-Services/Park-Development-(1)/Trail-Projects.aspx, accessed May 2014. 48 City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report, prepared by EIP Associates, adopted March 2004.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-18
prescribed mitigation measure, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact related to park and recreational facilities would be reduced to less than significant. (4) Schools
Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Schools?
Impact 4.L-4 Implementation of the proposed project could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the Existing Conditions section above, the project site would be served by the CNUSD within the attendance boundaries of the Adams Elementary School, Raney Intermediate School, and the Corona High School, approximately 1.50 miles north, two miles northeast, and 2.50 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. The proposed project would generate an additional 1,028 persons. Based upon the CNUSD student generation factors, the proposed project would generate approximately 88 elementary age students (grades K-6), 25 intermediate students (grades 7-8), and 43 high school students (grades 9-12) for a total of 156 students. A comparison of current and projected student enrollment to current capacity demonstrates that the CNUSD is still impacted at the intermediate school level but has some additional capacity to accommodate students from new residential development at both the elementary and high school levels.49 The CNUSD cannot guarantee that the Adams Elementary School, Raney Intermediate School, and the Corona High School can or would continue to accept student enrollment. If these schools are at capacity and cannot accept students from the proposed project, the CNUSD would bus the students to the nearest schools with capacity.50 Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the CNUSD is considered full mitigation for project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Mitigation Measure PS-6). With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
(5) Other Public Facilities
Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant 49 Corona-Norco Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis, December 2012. 50 Nancy Baker, Facilities Supervisor, Corona-Norco Unified School District, Letter Correspondence, dated March 13, 2014.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-19
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

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

The proposed project would generate an additional 1,028 persons.51 Due to this incremental increase of population, when compared to the City’s population of approximately 158,391 people, the impact on library services is anticipated to be minimal and would not affect the CPL’s ability to provide library services. As described above in the Existing Conditions section, the project site is located within approximately 2.84 miles of the CPL. The proposed project would not be expected to affect the CPL. To ensure that the library services are not eroded by future development, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080 of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL (Mitigation Measure PS-7). These fees would be utilized to fund additional services and improvements that may be required to provide adequate library services to the project area. With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure, impacts to library services and facilities would be less than significant. (6) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.L-6 Implementation of the proposed project could conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and Municipal Code). This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(a) California Fire Code (“CFC”)
As noted previously, specific CBC regulations have been incorporated by reference in the Municipal Code.

Chapter 7 of the CBC, regarding the use of fire-resistant building materials, fire suppression systems, and other fire safety elements related to the design and construction of new buildings, and Chapter 9 of the CBC regarding fire protection systems, are incorporated by reference in the Municipal Code. As these regulations for fire safety have been incorporated into the City’s building code, and would therefore be incorporated into 51 The average household size for the City of Corona is 3.52 persons/household per the U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed March 2014. 292 single family homes X 3.52 persons = 1,028 persons.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-20
future developments on-site that are subject to review by the City, the proposed project would be consistent with the CFC and impacts would be less than significant. (b) Quimby Act
The proposed project would be required to pay development fees to fund public facilities within the City, which at the discretion of the City, can include park facilities. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the Quimby Act and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (c) California Education Code (“CEC”) and Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”) The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the California Education Code (“CEC”) and SB 50 regarding the provision and funding of necessary school facilities within school district boundaries. As the proposed project would pay requisite fees for all future development projects on-site, it would not conflict with the CEC or SB 50 and impacts would be less than significant. (d) City of Corona Municipal Code
Future development of on-site uses would be subject to all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, including those related to fire safety, lighting, emergency vehicle access, and parkland standards, which are intended to minimize demands on fire, emergency medical, law enforcement services, and parkland within the City. Future development would also be subject to pay all applicable development fees for the public improvements and facilities associated with public services. As the proposed project would comply with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant with regard to public services.
(e) City of Corona General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains a number of goals and policies that are relevant to public services, including goals and policies contained Chapter 4 – Infrastructure and Public Services. As discussed below in Table 4.L-3, General Plan Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable goals and policies of the City of Corona General Plan. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.L-3
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement Infrastructure and Public Services – Police and Fire Services Policy 9.1.3 – Assess the impacts of incremental increases in community development density and intensity and
subsequent impacts on traffic congestion, municipal
infrastructure capacity, and emergency response times.

Ensure through the design review process that new
development and re-development will not result in a
reduction of law enforcement services below acceptable, safe levels.

Consistent. Police staffing is always under review and
evaluated in order to maintain the sworn officers to
population ratio, maintaining an emergency response
within five minutes or less, and retaining adequate officer availability. Currently, the CPD’s goal for emergency
response times is met. Upon project implementation,
response times to the project site should be within the Zone 4 response time goals. Further, the planned
extension of Foothill Boulevard to the west side of the City is anticipated to enhance the flow of traffic creating
December 2015 4.L. Public Services
Table 4.L-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-21
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement increased access and response of police units to the entire area. As described in the Project Design Features section above, the proposed project provides development
standards regulating vehicular circulation including
emergency vehicle access.

Policy 9.1.5 – Require development projects to contribute fees based on their proportional impact and demand for
police services.

Consistent. The proposed project would contribute fees
per City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure PS-4).

Policy 9.2.3 – Extend water distribution pipes to maintain and improve fire water flows.

Consistent. Water infrastructure within the project area would be constructed and improved as necessary to meet
the minimum fire flow requirements (1,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours) of the CFD. The ability of the water service provider to provide water supply to the project site is further discussed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR.

Policy 9.2.4 – Assess the impacts of incremental increases in community development density and intensity and
subsequent impacts on traffic congestion, municipal
infrastructure capacity, fire hazards, and emergency
response times. Ensure through the design review
process that new development and re-development will
not result in a reduction of fire protection services below acceptable, safe levels.

Consistent. As required by the CFD, 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 roadways designed to meet or exceed
minimum fire and emergency access requirements
including ingress/egress; minimum driveway and fire lane width of 28 feet; minimum turning radii of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside; grades not to exceed ten percent;
adequate on-site space to park CFD apparatus; fire
hydrant sizing, spacing minimum of 300 feet, and fire
hydrant locations; fire protection systems including
automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; minimum availability of firefighting water flow of 1,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours; and
building materials compliant with the CBC Chapter 7A,
Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure (Mitigation Measure PS-1). As described in the Project Design Features section above, water
infrastructure within the project area would be
constructed and improved as necessary to meet the
minimum fire flow requirements of the CFD.

Policy 9.2.5 – Require development projects to contribute fees based on their proportional impact and demand for
fire services.

Consistent. The proposed project would contribute fees
per City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure PS-2).

Goal 9.4 – Require that all existing and new
development/redevelopment address provision of police
and fire protection in an active and preventative manner.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.1.3 and Policy

9.2.4. Policy 9.4.1 – Require adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and vertical clearance on new streets.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.1.3 and Policy

9.2.4. Policy 9.4.2 – Require all new commercial, industrial, institutional, multiple-unit residential and mixed-use
developments to install fire protection systems and
encourage the use of automatic sprinkler systems where
not otherwise required by existing codes and ordinances.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.2.4.

4.L. Public Services – WORKING DRAFT – December 2015
Table 4.L-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-22
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement Policy 9.4.3 – Request, wherever appropriate, that all
existing development install and maintain fire protection devices including automatic sprinkler systems.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.2.4.

Policy 9.4.4 – Require all existing and new development to install and maintain adequate smoke detection and
carbon monoxide detection systems, in accordance with
State statutory requirements.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.2.4.

Policy 9.4.5 – Require, through the development review
process, that all structures and facilities conform to
Federal, State and City regulatory standards and
applicable safety guidelines.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all
Federal, State and City regulatory standards and
applicable safety guidelines.

Policy 9.4.7 – Require all new development projects to
incorporate adequate egress systems in their design as
well as encourage existing structures to upgrade their
egress systems.

Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.2.4.

Policy 9.4.8 – Provide an adequate level of water-related infrastructure in development for use in the event of a fire.

Consistent. Refer to Policy 9.2.3 and Policy 9.2.4.

Policy 9.5.3 – Require that landscaping proposed
proximate to commercial, industrial, multiple-family,
institutional, and public structures be designed and sited to facilitate safety and security surveillance.

Consistent. Project design would landscape the project
site with low-growing groundcover and shade trees,
rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential criminal activity around buildings and parking areas.

Policy 9.5.4 – Develop methods through design,
enforcement, and engineering to reduce auto pedestrian
accidents. Consistent. Refer to response Policy 9.1.3 and Policy

9.2.4. Goal 9.6 – Address fire prevention measures on open space land to reduce the risk of wildland fires.

Consistent. Refer to Policy 9.2.3 and Policy 9.2.4. Section

4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, discusses the
potential for impacts associated with wildland fires.

Section 4.G provides a detailed discussion of the fuel
modification zones proposed by the project, each of which would be designed specifically to help suppress a wildland fire in different ways. As discussed in Section 4.G, 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. As importantly, because the
existing project site is not maintained as a fuel
modification area and consists of uncontrolled wild land vegetation, existing single-family residences to the north, northeast, and east of the project 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.

December 2015 4.L. Public Services
Table 4.L-3 (Continued)
General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-23
Applicable Goals/Policies Project Consistency Statement Infrastructure and Public Services – Parks, Schools, & Libraries Goal 8.2 – Provide an appropriate range of active and
passive parkland facilities to meet park acreage standards and to meet the recreational needs of Corona’s population. Consistent. The proposed project would contribute fees per City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure PS-5) to fund City park maintenance and improvement
programs.

Policy 8.2.1 – Establish and maintain a standard of 4
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the City. Specific standards are as follows: 2.0 acres/1,000 for community parks; 2.0 acres/1,000 for (a combination of)
neighborhood, major, and special use parkland.

Consistent. Refer to response Goal 8.2.

Policy 8.3.1 – Require developers of new residential
developments of five or more dwelling units to provide
on-site recreational or open space amenities and/or a
contribute fees for the development citywide public
recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the
development’s resident population. Where there are
insufficient lands to provide on-site recreational/open space amenities, the developer will be required to provide the City of Corona with cash-in-lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities and offset user demand.

Consistent. The proposed project is not proposing new
park or recreational facilities. The City collects a park impact fee for residential projects which is used to fund the City’s park maintenance and improvement program.

Thus, to mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impact and to ensure that the provision of parks and
recreational services and facilities are not eroded by
future development, the project Applicant shall comply
with Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and
In Lieu Fees. The City’s tentative map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a tentative map (Mitigation Measure PS-5).

Policy 8.4.1 – Continue to implement the Quimby Act and to provide credits to acquire land donations and/or
community recreational facilities.

Consistent. Refer to response Goal 8.2.

Policy 8.4.2 – Acquire parkland, community centers, and aquatic facilities through such financial means as the
Capital Budget process, scheduling of Quimby Act funds, Citywide development impact fees, and grants.

Consistent. Refer to response Goal 8.2.

Policy 8.14.4 – Require that residential development pay fees to school districts for the acquisition of school sites.

Consistent. The proposed project would contribute fees
per City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure PS-6).

Policy 8.18.2 – Continue to utilize city-collected, library specific impact fees for the development of new and
maintenance of existing library facilities.

Consistent. The proposed project would contribute fees
per City requirements (refer to Mitigation Measure PS-7).

Sources: City of Corona General Plan, prepared by EIP Associates, adopted March 17, 2004; PCR Services Corporation, 2014.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
(1) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects would increase the population and introduce structures that would create increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services in the City. This cumulative demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would require

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-24
additional personnel and resources within the CFD to provide adequate service levels and to maintain existing response times. Individual developments are required to comply with pertinent provisions and standard conditions of the CFC, the CMC/Fire Code, and the CFD to minimize the potential for fire hazards, to promote fire safety, and to facilitate emergency response. Cumulative projects would be required to pay the required service and development fees for public improvements and facilities associated with the CFD. As such, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, compliance with the CFC, the CMC/Fire Code, and the CFD, and required payment of fees, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable. (2) Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects would increase the population and introduce structures that would generate an increased demand for police protection and law enforcement services in the City. Annual evaluation of police protection services by the City would determine the adequacy of police protection and law enforcement services and the necessary resources to meet the public safety needs. Individual cumulative projects would be subject to review by the CPD to determine ways to reduce the potential for crime incidences and demand for police protection and law enforcement services.

Cumulative projects would be required to pay the required service and development fees for public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD. As such, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures and required payment of fees, combined with review/approval by the CPD, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable. (3) Parks and Recreational Services
Deterioration of recreational facilities and resources within the local project vicinity as a result of local and regional population growth would be repaired and replaced with funding such as in-lieu fees for parks or donations of parkland pursuant to the Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35). Individual development projects would be reviewed to determine their potential impact on recreational facilities and resources. The actual parkland dedication calculations and credit determinations would be based on the subdivision maps submitted for each residential development among the cumulative projects. As such, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures and the required payment of the Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.
(4) Schools
The proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects would have indirect impacts to school facilities and services. Cumulative impacts on schools would be mitigated through the school facility improvements or payment of fees in accordance with SB 50 on a project-by-project basis. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.
(5) Library Services
The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects would increase the demand for library services. Cumulative projects would be required to pay the service and development fees for public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL system. As such, with implementation of applicable December 2015 4.L. Public Services
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-25
mitigation measures and required payment of fees, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be considerable.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures provided are applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented, as necessary, to ensure that impacts related to public services are less than significant. a. Fire Protection
Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, regarding wildland fire hazards and Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-5 in Section 4.M, Utilities and Service Systems, related to utilities and infrastructure. The following mitigation measures are also prescribed.

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

Mitigation Measure PS-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees 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.
b. Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
Mitigation Measure PS-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.

Mitigation Measure PS-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPD.
c. Parks and Recreational Services
Mitigation Measure PS-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority shall determine whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.

4.L. Public Services December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 4.L-26
d. Schools
Mitigation Measure PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the project Applicant shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the CNUSD. e. Libraries
Mitigation Measure PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall pay the required service and development fees pursuant to the Section 16.23.080 of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and payment of applicable development fees would ensure that impacts related to public services are less than significant.

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
M. TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION
This section provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with construction and operational traffic on roadway intersections and street segments. The section also addresses site access and circulation as well as project consistency with transportation plans and other relevant plans, policies, and regulations. Information for this analysis is based on a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated July 2013 prepared for the proposed project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). The TIA is provided in Appendix K of this EIR. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is located approximately three miles south of the Chino Valley Freeway (SR 7l) and the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) and approximately four miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15). Regional access to the site is provided by the SR 91. The site is located near the terminus of the Foothill Parkway and the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would run through the site. Table 4.M-1, Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity, summarizes the characteristics of streets within the vicinity of the site.
a. Existing Roadway System
(1) Streets
Figure 4.M-1, Study Intersections and Roadway Segments, shows the street network within the vicinity of the site and identifies the study intersections and roadway segments within the study area. Table 4.M-1, Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity, summarizes the characteristics of streets within the vicinity of the site.
(2) Study Intersections and Roadway Segments
The 11 existing intersections and three (3) future study intersections and the 11 roadway segments evaluated in the TIA are listed in Table 4.M-2, Study Intersections and Roadway Segments. The lane geometrics of the study intersections are shown in Figure 4.M-2, Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls. The study intersections were designated for evaluation based on City of Corona TIA criteria and discussions with City staff. The roadway segments were selected based on the arterial network within the study area and discussions with City staff.
(3) Existing Public Transit
The study area is served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the City of Corona Transit Service (CCTS) Corona Cruiser. No RTA routes traverse any study intersections analyzed in the TIA. The Corona Cruiser runs along pre-designated Blue Line and Red Line fixed routes. The Red Line route begins at

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-2 Table 4.M-1
Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity Street
Circulation
Element
Designation Direction of Roadway No. of Lanes Traffic Control Speed Limit Bike Lane Parking Serfas Club
Drive
Major Arterial
(4-lanes)
North-South 4-lane,
undivided
roadway north
of Palisades Dr.; 4-lane, divided
roadway south
of Palisades Dr.
35 mph
north of
Palisades
Dr.; 40 mph
south of
Palisades Dr. Class II
Bike Lane
Permitted on both sides
within vicinity of site
Paseo Grande Collector Northeast-Southwest 2-lane,
undivided
roadway
Intersection of
Paseo
Grande/Green
River Rd. is
currently
uncontrolled; planned to be
signalized with the
Foothill Parkway
Extension
40 mph Not permitted on either
side within the site
vicinity
Border Avenue Collector Northeast-Southwest 2-lane, divided roadway
Intersection of
Border
Ave./Ontario Ave. is currently
uncontrolled
35 mph Permitted on the north
side of the
roadway/restricted on
the south side of the
roadway, within the site
vicinity
Via Pacifica Secondary
Arterial
North-South 4-lane, divided
roadway; south
of Ontario Ave.
2-lane
undivided
roadway
40 mph
north of
Ontario Ave.;
25 mph
south of
Ontario Ave.

Not permitted north of
Ontario Ave.; Permitted
south of Ontario Ave.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
Table 4.M-1 (Continued)
Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-3 Street
Circulation
Element
Designation Direction of Roadway No. of Lanes Traffic Control Speed Limit Bike Lane Parking Lincoln
Avenue
Major Arterial
south of Ontario
Ave.; Secondary
Arterial north of
Ontario Ave. North-South 4-lane, divided
roadway
Intersections of
Lincoln
Ave./Ontario Ave.
and Lincoln
Ave./Foothill
Parkway are
controlled by an 8- phase traffic signal
40 mph
north of
Ontario Ave.; 45 mph
south of
Ontario Ave.

Permitted on east
side/restricted on west
side north of Ontario
Ave.; not permitted on
either side south of
Ontario Ave. Green River
Road
Major Arterial
(6-lanes) west of
Palisades Dr.; Major Arterial
(4-Lanes) east of
Palisades Dr. East-West/SoutheastNorthwest
4-lane, divided
roadway
45 mph Not permitted on either
side within the site
vicinity
Ontario
Avenue
Collector west of
Mangular Ave.
and a Major
Arterial east of
Mangular Ave.

East-West 4-lane, divided
roadway; 2-
lane, divided
roadway west
of Avenida Del
Vista; 2-lane,
undivided
roadway
between
Avenida Del
Vista and
Border Ave.;2-
lane, divided
roadway
between Border
Ave. and Via
Pacifica

25 mph west
of Border
Ave.; 35 mph
between
Border Ave. and Via
Pacifica; 45
mph east of
Via Pacifica
Permitted on both sides
of roadway west of
Border Ave.; not
permitted on either side
of roadway east of
Border Ave.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
Table 4.M-1 (Continued)
Summary of Characteristics of the Existing Street Network in the Site Vicinity City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-4 Street
Circulation
Element
Designation Direction of Roadway No. of Lanes Traffic Control Speed Limit Bike Lane Parking Mesquite Lane 2-lane,
undivided
residential
roadway
25 mph Permitted on both sides
within site vicinity
Emerson Drive 2-lane,
undivided
residential
roadway
25 mph Permitted on both sides
within site vicinity
Peacock Lane 2-lane,
undivided
residential
roadway
25 mph Permitted on both sides
within site vicinity
Trudy Way 2-lane,
undivided
residential
roadway
25 mph Permitted on both sides
within site vicinity
Elvsia Street 2-lane,
undivided
residential
roadway
25 mph Permitted on both sides
within site vicinity
Foothill
Parkwaya Secondary Arterial
East-West 4-lane, divided
roadway
45 mph Not permitted on either
side within site vicinity
a Currently extends from Trudy Way in the west to the eastern City limits of Corona. Foothill Parkway will be extended from Trudy Way to adjoin with Green River Road at Paseo Grande with the Foothill Parkway Extension Project. Roadway improvements are expected to be completed by 2017.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2014
Study Intersec ons and Roadway Segments FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.M-1
Source: Linsco , Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2013. N
Exis ng Roadway Condi ons and Intersec on Controls FIGURE Skyline Heights Project 4.M-2
Source: Linsco , Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2013. N
December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-7
California Avenue and Ontario Avenue and ends at the Metrolink West Corona station. The route does not traverse any study intersections analyzed in this report. b. Existing Traffic Conditions
(1) Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were collected in February 2013 for the study intersection and roadway segment evaluated in the TIA. Figure 4.M-3, Existing A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, and Figure 4.M-4, Existing P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, shows the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes, respectively, for the 11 existing study intersections.

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

1. Serfas Club Drive at Green River Road

2. Paseo Grande at Green River Road

3. Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue 5. Lincoln Avenue at Ontario Avenue

6. Border Avenue at Mesquite Lane

7. Border Avenue at Emerson Drive

8. Border Avenue at Peacock Lane

9. Lincoln Avenue at Foothill Parkway 10. Elvsia Street at Foothill Parkway

11. Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway

12. Chase Drive at Foothill Parkway [Future]

13. Border Avenue/B Street at Foothill Parkway [Future] 14. P Street at Foothill Parkway [Future] Roadway Segments

1. Green River Road between Serfas Club Drive and Paseo Grande

2. Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road

3. Ontario Avenue between Paseo Grande and Border Avenue

4. Border Avenue between Via Pacifica and Ontario Avenue

5. Ontario Avenue between Border Avenue and Via Pacifica

6. Ontario Avenue between Via Pacifica and Lincoln Avenue

7. Lincoln Avenue between Citron Street and Ontario Avenue

8. Border Avenue between Ontario Avenue and Foothill Parkway

9. Lincoln Avenue between Ontario Avenue and Foothill Parkway

10. Foothill Parkway between Elysia Street and Lincoln Avenue

11. Foothill Parkway between Lincoln Avenue and Highgrove Street Source: LLG, 2013; PCR Services Corporation, 2014

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-8
Intersections
Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on intersections and roadway segments, and ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). In conformance with City of Corona requirements, A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for the study intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations method of analysis. LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 4.M-3, Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM Methodology), provides the LOS, control delay and a description of the performance rating scheme. For unsignalized intersections, LOS was determined using the HCM 2000 unsignalized methodology for stopcontrolled intersections. Table 4.M-4, Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology), provides the delay per vehicle and a description for each performance rating scheme.

Currently, two of the 11 study intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service during the P.M. peak hour when compared to the LOS thresholds. The remaining 9 study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The intersections operating at adverse levels of service are:

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

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS F during the P.M. peak hour Roadway Segments
Figure 4.M-5, Existing Daily Traffic Volumes, presents the existing volumes of traffic on the study roadway segments. Daily operating conditions for the roadway segments are calculated according to the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio of each roadway segment. The V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on the 24-hour traffic volumes and the capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. Table 4.M-5, Level of Service Criteria For Roadway Segments (V/C Methodology), shows the categories of level of service along with the corresponding V/C value range. (See subsection 2.a., Methodology, for a more detailed discussion regarding the methodology and subsection 2.b., Thresholds of Significance, for the criteria used in the TIA.) Currently, one of the 11 study roadway segments operate at unacceptable level of service on a daily basis when compared to the LOS standards. The remaining 10 study roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service on a daily basis. The roadway segment operating at adverse level of service is:

4. Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: LOS E c. Regulatory Framework
The City of Corona General Plan includes policies and goals that apply to traffic service levels and transportation infrastructure. A consistency analysis is provided in the Impact Analysis under Threshold 6; please see Table 4.M-10 below.

Exis ng AM Peak Hour Tra FIGURE c Volumes
Skyline Heights Project 4.M-3
Source: Linsco , Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2013. N
Exis ng PM Peak Hour Tra FIGURE c Volumes
Skyline Heights Project 4.M-4
Source: Linsco , Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2013. N
Exis ng Daily Tra FIGURE c Volumes
Skyline Heights Project 4.M-5
Source: Linsco , Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2013. N

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-12
This page is intentionally blank.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-13

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. Methodology
The TIA, which is a multi-step process, was conducted in accordance with the City of Corona TIA criteria and discussions with City staff. After taking existing traffic counts, trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. Next trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project-generated trips, was determined. These origins Table 4.M-3
Level of Service Criteria For Signalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description
A < 10.0
This level of service occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during
the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.

Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B > 10.0 and < 20.0
This level generally occurs with good progression,
short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C > 20.0 and < 35.0
Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result
from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this
level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.

D > 35.0 and < 55.0
Long traffic delays. At level D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays
may result from some combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios.

Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.

E > 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays. This level is considered by
many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.

These high delay values generally indicate poor
progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F 80.0
Severe congestion. This level, considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over
saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle
failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing factors to such delay levels.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections)

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-14
and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project-generated traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Trip distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while trip assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway segments and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and project-generated trip assignments developed, the impact of the project is isolated by comparing operational LOS conditions at study intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project-generated traffic. The various components of the traffic analysis are discussed in more detail below. (1) Study Timeframes
The HCM, Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio and corresponding LOS calculations were performed at the study intersections and roadway segments for the following existing, near-term and long-term traffic scenarios:

A. Existing (Baseline) Conditions;
B. Existing (Baseline) With Project;
C. Scenario (B) with Recommended Improvements, if any;
D. Year 2020 Without Project;
E. Year 2020 With Project;
F. Scenario (E) with Recommended Improvements, if any;
G. Year 2035 Without Project;
H. Year 2035 With Project; and
I. Scenario (H) with Recommended Improvements, if any.

Table 4.M-4
Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections (HCM Methodology) Level of Service
(LOS)
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A 10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and 15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and 25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and 35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and 50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections).

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-15
Table 4.M-5
Level of Service Criteria For Roadway Segments (V/C Methodology) Level of Service
(LOS)
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(V/C) Level of Service Description
A 0.600
EXCELLENT. Describes primarily free flow operations
at average travel speeds, usually about 90% of the free flow speed for the arterial class. Vehicles are
completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized
intersections is minimal.

B 0.601 – 0.700
VERY GOOD. Represents reasonably unimpeded
operations at average travel speeds, usually about
70% of the free flow speed for the arterial class. The
ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only
slightly restricted and stopped delays are not
bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to
appreciable tension.

C 0.701 – 0.800
GOOD. Represents stable conditions; however, ability
to maneuver and change lanes in mid-block location
may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer
queues and/or adverse signal coordination may
contribute to lower average travel speeds of about
50% of the average free flow speed for the arterial
class. Motorists will experience appreciable tension
while driving.

D 0.801 – 0.900
FAIR. Borders on a range in which small increases in
flow may cause substantial increases in approach
delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate
signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of
these. Average travel speeds are about 40% of free
flow speed.

E 0.901 – 1.000
POOR. Characterized by significant approach delays
and average travel speeds of one-third the free flow
speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some
combination of adverse progression, high signal
density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.

F > 1.000
FAILURE. Characterizes arterial flow at extremely low
speeds below one-third to one-quarter of the free flow
speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical
signalized locations, with resultant high approach
delays. Adverse progression is frequently a
contributor to this condition.

LOS F applies whenever the flow rate exceeds the segment capacity.

Source: Transportation Research Board 2000.

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-16
(2) Future Intersection and Roadway Improvements
The Foothill Parkway currently extends approximately five miles in the southern portion of the City of Corona to Trudy Way. The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which has been anticipated since the 1980s, would consist of two miles of new four-lane highway from Trudy Way to Paseo Grande at Green River Road connecting Sierra del Oro to south Corona. The extension of Foothill Parkway is expected to provide traffic congestion relief to existing east-west City roads, including Ontario Avenue and 6th Street.

Connections to the new section of Foothill Parkway from both Border Avenue and Mangular Avenue, via Chase Drive, are part of the overall extension of the roadway. The Existing and Existing With Project scenarios do not assume the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, while the 2020 and 2035 scenarios assume the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension.

For analysis purposes, various improvements have been assumed in the different scenarios. The Existing With Project scenario assumes that the planned improvements described below for the three affected intersections would be implemented as part of the development of the proposed residential project, since the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension is not assumed in the Existing With Project scenario:

Intersection 11 – Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: Widen and/or restripe Foothill Parkway to provide a second eastbound through lane and a second westbound through lane.

Intersection 13 – Border Avenue/“B” Street at Foothill Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for six-phase operation. Construct the south leg of “B” Street at this intersection and provide a shared northbound left-through-right turn lane. Construct the north leg of Border Avenue at this intersection and provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane and a shared southbound through- right turn-lane. Construct the west leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through right turn-lane. Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane, a westbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turn-lane.

It should be noted that this planned traffic signal is a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project.

Intersection 14 – “P” Street at Foothill Parkway: Construct a one-way stop-controlled intersection.

Construct the south leg of “P” Street at this intersection and provide an exclusive northbound left- turn lane and an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. Construct the west leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turnlane. Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane and two westbound through lanes. There are no planned improvements to roadway segments in the Existing With Project scenario.

In the 2020 Without Project and 2020 With Project scenarios, the planned improvements described below would be implemented for the following five intersections and would be the sole responsibility of the Project if the Project were to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension:

Intersection 2 – Paseo Grande at Green River Road/Foothill Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for six-phase operation. Widen the west leg of Green River Road at this intersection to provide a 2nd exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turn lane. Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection to provide an December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-17
exclusive westbound left-turn lane, two westbound through lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane.

Construct the south leg of Paseo Grande at this intersection to provide a shared northbound left- through-right lane. Widen the north leg of Paseo Grande at this intersection to provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane and a shared southbound through-right lane. It should be noted that these planned roadway improvements will be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project. In addition, this planned traffic signal (with the construction of the south and east legs) is a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project
Intersection 11 – Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: Widen and/or restripe Foothill Parkway to provide a second eastbound through lane and a second westbound through lane as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project.

Intersection 12 – Chase Drive at Foothill Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for six-phase operation. Construct the south leg of Chase Drive at this intersection and provide a shared northbound left-through-right turn lane. Construct the north leg of Chase Drive at this intersection and provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane and a shared southbound through-right turnlane. Construct the west leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turn-lane.

Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane, a westbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turn lane. It should be noted that these planned roadway improvements will be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project. In addition, this planned traffic signal is a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project.

Intersection 13 – Border Avenue/“B” Street at Foothill Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for six-phase operation. Construct the south leg of “B” Street at this intersection and provide a shared northbound left-through-right turn lane. Construct the north leg of Border Avenue at this intersection and provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane and a shared southbound through- right turn-lane. Construct the west leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through right turn-lane. Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane, a westbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turn-lane.

It should be noted that these planned roadway improvements will be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project except the south leg of the intersection, which is the Project access. In addition this planned traffic signal is a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project Intersection 14 – “P” Street at Foothill Parkway: Construct a one-way stop-controlled intersection.

Construct the south leg of “P” Street at this intersection and provide an exclusive northbound left- turn lane and an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. Construct the west leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through-right turnlane. Construct the east leg of Foothill Parkway at this intersection and provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane and two westbound through lanes. It should be noted that these planned roadway improvements will be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project except the south leg of the intersection, which is the Project access.

In addition, the following planned improvements are assumed for Roadway Segment 1:

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-18
Roadway Segment 1 – Green River Road between Serfas Club Drive and Paseo Grande: Consistent with the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element, Green River Road will be improved from a Two-Lane Divided Collector to a Four-Lane Divided Arterial along this roadway segment prior to the Project completion Year 2020.

These improvements would be the sole responsibility of the Project if the Project were to be developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. In the 2035 Without Project and 2035 With Project scenarios, planned improvements are assumed at the same five intersections and one roadway segment as in the 2020 With and Without Project scenarios as described above. (3) Trip Generation
Trip generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. The trip generation is based on the Ninth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, Washington, D.C., 2012). Table 4.M-6, Project Trip Generation Rates, provides the forecast of the daily and peak hour project traffic volumes for a typical weekday. As shown in Table 4.M-6, the project would generate 2,780 daily trips (one half arriving, one half departing), with 219 trips (55 inbound, 164 outbound) in the A.M. peak hour and 292 trips (184 inbound, 108 outbound) in the P.M. peak hour on a typical weekday. (4) Trip Distribution
Project traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, were distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system in consultation with City staff based on the following considerations:

Table 4.M-6
Project Trip Generation Rates and Forecast
Project Description
Daily 2-
Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Trip Generation Factors:
210: Single Family Residential (TE/DU) 9.52 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast:

Single Family Residential - Phase I (157 DU) 1,495 30 88 118 99 58 157 Single Family Residential - Phase II (90 DU) 857 17 50 68 57 33 90 Single Family Residential - Phase III (45 DU) 428 8 25 33 28 17 45 Proposed Project (292 DU) Trip Generation Forecast 2,780 55 164 219 184 108 292 TE/DU = Trip ends per Dwelling Unit
DU = Dwelling Units
Source: Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2012). Average rates used; Linscott, Law & Greenspan, July 2013
December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-19
The site’s proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e., SR 91 Freeway); Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals, and the future Foothill Parkway Extension project; The traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the site; Existing intersection traffic volumes; and
Ingress/egress availability at the site.

Because of the timing of the completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension project, the Existing Conditions trip distribution is made without the Foothill Parkway Extension (see Figure 5-1) of the TIA) while the future directional trip distribution pattern includes the Foothill Parkway Extension (see Figure 5-2 of the TIA). The A. M. and P.M. traffic volumes under existing conditions at the 14 study intersections are shown in Figures 5- 3 and 5-4, respectively, of the TIA. The daily traffic volumes under existing conditions on the 11 study roadway segments is shown in Figure 5-5 of the TIA. Figures 5-6 and 5-7 of the TIA show the Future Conditions in the A. M. and P.M. hours respectively at the 14 study intersections and Figure 5-8 of the TIA shows the Future Conditions daily volumes on the 11 study roadway segments.

Traffic counts were collected in February 2013 for the study intersection and roadway segment evaluated in the TIA.
(5) Level of Service
Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of LOS, which is a qualitative measure used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on intersections and roadway segments, and ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). The following describes the methodology for determining projected LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections as well as roadway segments.
(a) Signalized Intersections
In conformance with City of Corona requirements, A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for the study intersections were evaluated using the HCM operations method of analysis. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. (b) Unsignalized Intersections
In accordance with the requirements of the City of Corona, A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions for the unsignalized study intersections were evaluated using the HCM 2000 unsignalized methodology for stop- controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, this methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections,

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-20
this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach.
(c) Roadway Segments – V/C Ratio
In conformance with the City of Corona requirements, the first step is to calculate daily operating conditions for the study roadway segments according to the V/C ratio of each roadway segment. The V/C relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on the 24-hour traffic volumes and the capacity based on the City’s classification of each roadway. (6) Cumulative Development
The TIA contains two future year scenarios, Year 2020 and Year 2035, which both include traffic generated by other development projects. These two scenarios represent a near-term and long-term cumulative analysis. The TIA was conducted using the City’s travel demand model developed by LSA Associates, Inc. for the City of Corona Circulation Element Update. The Year 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic volume forecasts were obtained through utilization of the City’s model, which is based on data from the Revised Travel Demand Model of the City of Corona’s General Plan, with selected regional projects from the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) added as well as the Riverside County to Orange County connection project.

Thus, the model provides the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. The Year 2020 Without Project traffic volumes were obtained by interpolating between the Existing and Year 2035 Without Project traffic volumes, as well as reducing the Year 2035 Without Project traffic volumes by fifteen percent (15%) [one percent (1%) per year for fifteen (15) years].
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 the transportation system that are utilized as the thresholds of significance in this section, in addition to the City of Corona’s Circulation Element and guidelines for the assessment of traffic impacts.
(1) Intersections
The City of Corona considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections that consist of collector and arterial roadways and LOS E for Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections based on the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element Policy 6.1.6.1 In addition, the City of Corona considers LOS C to be the minimum acceptable LOS for local and collector streets in residential and industrial areas.
1 The City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element Policy 6.1.6 states “At some key locations, such as at heavily traveled freeway interchanges, LOS E may be adopted as the acceptable standard, on a case-by-case basis.” During the course of the Foothill Expansion Project development and the preparation of the Draft EIR for that project, the City of Corona staff reviewed this policy, and determined that, due to the close proximity of the segment of Green River Road to SR-91 and the roadway segment’s characteristics, this portion of Green River Road meets the criteria. The determination is documented in the City’s Draft EIR for the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension (dated August 2008).

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-21
Threshold 1: A significant intersection impact would occur if the project would reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections for which LOS E is acceptable (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-1 below). (2) Roadway Segments
The City of Corona considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all roadway segments that consist of collector and arterial roadways and LOS E for Green River Road west of Palisades Drive based on the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element Policy 6.1.6. In addition, the City of Corona considers LOS C to be the minimum acceptable LOS for local and collector streets in residential and industrial areas.

Threshold 2: A significant impact would occur to a roadway segment if the project would reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of the segment of Green River Road west of Palisades Drive for which LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-2 below). (3) Other Criteria
The project would result in a significant impact if the project would:

Threshold 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-3 below).

Threshold 4: Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-4 below).

Threshold 5: Result in insufficient off-street parking that would not comply with the City of Corona parking requirements (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-5 below).

Threshold 6: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (refer to Impact Statement 4.M-6 below).
c. Project Design Features
Vehicle access to the site would be from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which would be constructed along the northeast side of the property. Access to the south edge of the site would be via Trudy Way, which currently serves Subdivision Tract 31955. The central access point from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be at “P” Street and access to the northerly sector would be via “B” Street, which would align with Border Avenue. The access points along Trudy Way and “B” Street will be gated. The project would result in a dedication of approximately 21.38 acres from the 270.9-acre for the alignment of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Roadway development within the subdivision would be completed in compliance with the City’s requirements. “P” Street would be developed to meet “local collector,” 88-foot-wide standards. Eighty-eightfoot-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”

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-22
standards require a 44-foot-wide, four-lane roadway, five-foot-wide sidewalks, and seven-foot-wide landscaped parkways. Interior streets would be developed to meet “local street,” 60-foot-wide or 56-footwide standards. “Local street” 60-foot-wide standards require four-foot-wide sidewalks and eight-foot-wide landscaped parkways. “Local street” 56-foot-wide standards require four-foot-wide sidewalks and six-footwide landscaped parkways. In addition, the main project roadway for development phases I and II (“A” Street or Trudy Way extension), has been designed as a 36 to 40-foot Local roadway.

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

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

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

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

With regard to construction, all construction staging, material and equipment storage, and construction worker parking would occur within the project site boundaries. In addition, in order to reduce the potential impact of construction-related traffic, the Applicant would implement a Construction Management Plan to minimize traffic impacts upon the local circulation system in the area. The Construction Management Plan would be developed in coordination with, and subject to approval from, the City of Corona Traffic Engineer.

December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-23
d. Analysis of Project Impacts
(1) Intersection Analysis
Threshold 1: A significant intersection impact would occur if the project would reduce the LOS below LOS D with the exception of Green River Road at SR-91 Ramps and Dominguez Ranch Road intersections for which LOS E is acceptable. Impact 4.M-1 With regard to construction, aside from the nuisance traffic that would occur as a result of construction-related activities (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), impacts resulting from construction traffic would be less than significant. With regard to operation, the project would add trips to the transportation network. The Existing With Project, 2020 With Project and 2035 With Project would result in significant impacts at the four study intersections identified in the table below during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. With the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

3. Paseo
Grande/Onta
rio Avenue
A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
-- -- If the project is developed prior to the
construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension
then prior to issuance of any building permit for
the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic
signal and design for two-phase operation.

4. Border
Avenue/Onta
rio Avenue
P.M.: LOS F P.M.: LOS E A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance of any building permit for the
project, a traffic signal designed for two-phase
operation shall be installed. Intersection
improvements shall include: 1) restriping of the
eastbound shared left-through lane and the
exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to
an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through- right turn lane and 2) restriping of the westbound shared left-through lane and the
exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to
an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through- right turn lane. 10. Elysia Street/Footh
ill Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance of any building permit for the
project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal
and design for five-phase operation to the
satisfaction of the City. 11. Trudy
Way/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance of any building permit for the
project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal
and design for three-phase operation to the
satisfaction of the City.

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

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

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

4. Border Avenue at Ontario Avenue: LOS F during the P.M. peak hour Mitigation measures are recommended for improvements at each of the above intersections. The mitigation measures would require: 1) the installation of a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation at Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue intersection; and 2) the installation of a traffic signal designed for two-phase December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-25
operation and restriping of the lanes at Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue intersection. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Border Avenue at All – Way DAM 6.9 A 7.4 A No -- -- Peacock Lane Stop PM 7.0 A 7.6 A No -- -- 9. Lincoln Avenue at 8-Phase D AM 26.3 C 27.2 C No -- -- Foothill Parkway Traffic Signal PM 27.7 C 28.7 C No -- -- 10. Elysia Street at All – Way D AM 9.2 A 9.6 A No -- -- Foothill Parkway Stop PM 8.9 A 9.5 A No -- -- 11. Trudy Way at One – Way D AM 8.5 A 9.1 A No -- -- Foothill Parkway Stop PM 8.6 A 9.1 A No -- -- 12. Chase Drive at Does Not -- AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Foothill Parkwayd Exist PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13. Border Avenue/“B” Street at 6-Phase D AM -- -- 25.2 C No -- -- Foothill Parkwaye
Traffic Signal f PM -- -- 25.0 C No -- --
December 2015 4.M. Transportation
Table 4.M-7 (Continued)
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-27 Key Intersection
Control
Type
Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Existing
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Existing
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: LOS F during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-29 Table 4.M-8
Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya Key Intersection Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2020
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2020
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. “P” Street at D
AM -- -- -- -- 9.7 A No -- -- Foothill Parkwayf PM -- -- -- -- 10.4 B No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for the LOS definitions Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standards a Appendices E and F of the TIA contain the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. b Under Existing traffic conditions, this intersection does not have any delay since it is currently uncontrolled with only west and north legs. However, it is planned to be signalized in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. These improvements have been assumed in the background traffic conditions for Year 2020 traffic conditions. c Although the impacted intersection of Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue has been identified to be signalized to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not needed under the cumulative Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The future traffic volumes at this intersection will be significantly reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Consequently, existing traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway, accordingly. d
Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2020 background traffic conditions. e Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 3-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 3-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2020 background traffic conditions. Further, in conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is proposed to add the south leg and planned to be a 6 Traffic Signal under the Year 2020 With Project traffic conditions f Intersection currently does not exist. In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be One-Way Stop-Controlled under the “With” Project traffic conditions
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2013 December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-31 Table 4.M-9
Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summarya Key Intersection Min
LOS
Time
Period
Existing
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
Year 2035
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Significant
Impact
Year 2035
With Project
With Mitigation
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS
Delay
(s/v) LOS Yes/No
Delay
(s/v) LOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. “P” Street at D
AM -- -- -- -- 13.8 B No -- -- Foothill Parkwayf PM -- -- -- -- 17.9 C No -- -- Notes:
s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for the LOS definitions Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standards a Appendices E and G of the TIA contain the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. b Under Existing traffic conditions, this intersection does not have any delay since it is currently uncontrolled with only west and north legs. However, it is planned to be signalized in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. These improvements have been assumed in the background traffic conditions for Year 2035 traffic conditions. c Although the impacted intersection of Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue has been identified to be signalized to achieve an acceptable level of service under the Existing With Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not needed under the cumulative Year 2020 and Year 2035 traffic conditions. The future traffic volumes at this intersection will be significantly reduced as a result of the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension, which will become the primary route for vehicles travelling east-west through the southern portion of the City as opposed to the current route via Ontario Avenue. Consequently, existing traffic volumes have been re-routed from Paseo Grande and Ontario Avenue to the future Foothill Parkway, accordingly. d
Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 4-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 6-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2035 background traffic conditions. e Intersection currently does not exist. However, it is planned to be a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Foothill Parkway Extension project. It is proposed to be a 3-legged intersection and is going to be designed as a 3-phase traffic signal. This planned improvement has been assumed in the Year 2035 background traffic conditions. Further, in conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is proposed to add the south leg and planned to be a 6 Traffic Signal under the Year 2035 With Project traffic conditions f Intersection currently does not exist. In conjunction with the Project development, this intersection is planned to be One-Way Stop-Controlled under the “With” Project traffic conditions
Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2013 December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-33
Year 2035 With Project
As shown in Table 4.M-9, the 2035 With Project traffic would result in significant impacts at the following three study intersections during the A.M. and/or P.M. peak hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact 4.M-3 The project would not result in the realignment of any existing streets thereby creating a hazardous design feature. With the implementation of the project design features, the proposed roadways within the tract would provide adequate sight access and would not result in a substantial increase in hazards. The roadway design of the project would result in less than significant Impacts.

The project would not result in modifications to the local street network. Vehicular access to the proposed subdivision would be from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, which would be constructed along the northeast side of the site. It should be noted that, as discussed previously, it is expected that construction of the proposed project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project is completed as this roadway would provide primary vehicular access for all project components. The alignment of the December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-35
Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would require the dedication of approximately 21.38 acres from the 270.9-acre project site. Access to the south edge of the site would be via Trudy Way, which currently serves Subdivision Tract 31955. The central access point from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension would be at “P” Street and access to the northerly sector would be via “B” Street, which would align with Border Avenue. The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension has been designed to ensure safety and does not include any hazardous design features.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative construction traffic impacts would occur if construction traffic from related projects would impact the same streets and access points as the proposed project. There are no related projects within the immediate vicinity of the site, and as such the potential for cumulative construction traffic impacts is considered remote. The TIA, which is summarized above, contains two future year scenarios, Year 2020 and Year 2035, which both include traffic generated by other development projects. These two scenarios represent a near-term and long-term cumulative analysis. The TIA was conducted using the City’s travel demand model developed by LSA Associates, Inc. for the City of Corona Circulation Element Update. The Year 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic volume forecasts were obtained through utilization of the City’s model, which is based on December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-37 Table 4.M-10
Consistency Analysis with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City’s Circulation Element Goals and Policies Consistency
Infrastructure and Public Services – Circulation
Goal 6.1 – Provide a system of streets that meets the
needs of current and future residents and
businesses, and facilitates the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the City,
while accommodating future growth consistent with
the Land Use Element.

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

Therefore, the project would not conflict with the goal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent. As discussed under Impact 4.M-4 above, the internal roadways would be constructed to accommodate the projected traffic and would not create hazardous circumstances. In addition, with the implementation of mitigation measures the project would not result in significant impacts at intersections or on roadway segments within the study area.

Finally, the project would be reviewed by the appropriate agencies to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in accordance with City requirements. Therefore, impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant and the project would not conflict with this policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Paseo
Grande/Ontario
Avenue
A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
-- -- If the project is
developed prior to
the construction of
the Foothill
Parkway
Extension then
prior to issuance
of any building
permit for the
project, the
Applicant shall
install a traffic
signal and design
for two-phase
operation.

4. Border
Avenue/Ontario
Avenue
P.M.: LOS F P.M.: LOS E A.M.: LOS E
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance
of any building
permit for the
project, a traffic
signal designed for
two-phase
operation shall be
installed. Intersection
improvements
shall include: 1)
restriping of the
eastbound shared
left-through lane
and the exclusive
right-turn lane on
Ontario Avenue to
an exclusive left- turn lane and a
shared through- right turn lane and
2) restriping of the
westbound shared
left-through lane
and the exclusive
right-turn lane on
Ontario Avenue to
an exclusive left-
December 2015 4.M. Transportation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-43
Intersection Existing With Project 2020 With Project 2035 With Project Mitigation
Measures
turn lane and a
shared through- right turn lane. 10. Elysia
Street/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance
of any building
permit for the
project, the
Applicant shall
install a traffic
signal and design
for five-phase
operation to the
satisfaction of the
City.

11. Trudy
Way/Foothill
Parkway
-- -- A.M.: LOS F
P.M.: LOS F
Prior to issuance
of any building
permit for the
project, the
Applicant shall
install a traffic
signal and design
for three-phase
operation to the
satisfaction of the
City.

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

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

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

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

4.M. Transportation December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.M-44
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Intersection 11 - Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City. b. Roadway Segments Mitigation Measure TR-5: Roadway Segment 2 – Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road: If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then the Applicant shall improve this roadway segment to a 4-Lane Secondary Roadway to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

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

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

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

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

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
N. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conveyance;
Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage;
Reclaimed Municipal Water;
Flood Control;
Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation;
Matching Water Quality to Use;
December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-17
Pollution Prevention;
Recharge Area Protection; and
Urban Runoff Management
The following projects have been planned by the City to enhance the operations and reliability of the City’s water infrastructure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insulation of water-heating systems is also required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focuses on diversion program implementation.

Increases simplicity and timeliness of goal measurement.

Allows for jurisdiction growth.

Saves money and time by eliminating complex calculations.

Increases CalRecycle staff field presence.

Adjusts CalRecycle review schedule for compliant jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-32
Threshold 5: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-2 below); or Threshold 6: Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-4 below); or Threshold 7: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-4 below); or
Threshold 8: Comply with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement 4.N-5 below).
c. Project Design Features
The construction and operation of the proposed project would be completed in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements in consultation with the CDWP and WMI regarding water supply and water infrastructure, wastewater, and solid waste. The proposed project would implement a number of infrastructure improvements that are necessary for operation of the proposed uses, which include new water distribution and storage facilities, wastewater conveyance facilities, and stormwater drainage and detention facilities.

As relates to water facilities, the project would construct on- and off-site water pipelines ranging in size from 8 to 12 inches in diameter, upgrade the existing on-site Mabey Canyon Booster Pump Station to 1,340 gpm capacity, as well as construct a new on-site Booster Pump Station with 500 gpm capacity, a new on-site 0.6- million-gallon water reservoir tank, and install a new on-site zone valve in “B” Street, as summarized below in Table 4.N-14, Proposed Infrastructure Improvements. In addition, new water infrastructure is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements Project of which is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would require the following City of Corona Capital Improvements/Water Infrastructure to be constructed prior to project implementation:

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

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-33
Although unlikely and not anticipated to occur, in the event that these improvements are not already in place and operational prior to completion of the proposed project, any improvements necessary to serve the project would be the sole responsibility of the project Applicant.

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

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

As discussed in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project would include new on- site stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with the most recent City of Corona and Riverside County and Water Conservation District design requirements. New off-site storm drain pipes would also be constructed as part of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, which would also serve the proposed project. In addition, the project would implement a number of Project Design Features (PDFs), including PDF HYD-4 and PDF HYD-5, which relate to stormwater infrastructure: (1) PDF HYD-4: The project will install a system of flow-by basins, detention basins, and storm drain piping so that off-site flows will by-pass the site and will not be co-mingled with development runoff which will be treated at the designated BMP treatment areas; (2) PDF HYD-5: The site is divided into five tributary areas, or Drainage Management Areas (DMAs), which are designated as Basins A, B, C, D, and E. The Applicant will Table 4.N-14
Proposed Infrastructure Improvements
Project No. Project Description
Facility
Location Zone
Proposed
Pipe Size
(inches)
Approx.

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

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

Construction activities would create a short-term demand for water during the construction period for fugitive dust control, concrete preparation, site preparation, clean up, and other short-term construction- related activities. Project trenching, new/upgraded lateral connections, installation of water mains, construction of the reservoir, underground tank, booster pump stations, and associated pipelines would occur in accordance with City-issued construction permits and applicable CDWP regulations and requirements which have been formulated to avoid interruptions in water service to off-site uses and adverse effects to the City’s water system. The final alignment and location of utilities would require review and approval by the CDWP. Project construction could require temporary lane closures due to trenching and grading within Foothill Parkway. As further discussed in Section 4.M., Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the project Applicant would implement a Construction Management Plan in coordination with the City Traffic Construc on Phasing FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-3
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014.

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

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

1.28 mgd peak hour demand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to Figure 4.N-4, Proposed Water Facilities Plan, which illustrates the proposed water facility improvements and their relative sizes based on the water system model results of the Water Study. Further, new water infrastructure is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements Project of which is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project.

As such, the proposed project would require the following City of Corona Capital Improvements/Water Infrastructure to be constructed prior to the build-out condition:

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

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

Overall, compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Further, the project site would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project from existing and proposed entitlements and resources. Thus, impacts regarding water supply and water infrastructure would be less than significant.
(2) Wastewater
Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-40
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact 4.N-2 Implementation of the proposed project could require or result in the construction of new on-site and off-site wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing on-site and off-site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Thus, impacts regarding wastewater would be less than significant. (a) Construction
During construction of the proposed project, a negligible amount of wastewater would be generated by construction workers. It is anticipated that portable toilets would be provided by a private company and the waste disposed of off-site. Wastewater generation from construction activities is not anticipated to cause a measurable increase in wastewater flows at a point where, and at a time when, a sewer’s capacity is already constrained or that would cause a sewer’s capacity to become constrained. Additionally, construction is not anticipated to generate wastewater flows that would substantially or incrementally exceed the future scheduled capacity of the City’s WRF 1 and WRF 3. Therefore, construction impacts to the local wastewater conveyance and treatment system would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wastewater plants are required to comply with associated WDRs and any updates or new permits issued. WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. The wastewater treatment requirements issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB) for Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 was developed to ensure that adequate levels of treatment would be provided for the wastewater flows emanating from all land uses within its service area. The project proposes site design BMPs aimed at avoiding or reducing the water quality impacts of the proposed project and would incorporate all applicable BMPs for construction, post-construction/operation, and water quality treatment to ensure compliance with the NPDES. New development pursuant to implementation of the proposed project must comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and other applicable WDRs, as enforced by the SARWQCB and the California SWRCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant in this regard.
(3) Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Threshold Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact 4.N-3 Implementation of the proposed project would require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of project design features would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would include new on-site stormwater drainage facilities that would be constructed in accordance with the recent City of Corona and Riverside County and Water Conservation District design requirements. New off-site storm drain pipes would be constructed with the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project. Environmental impacts associated with development of the Project, including on-site drainage facilities have been evaluated throughout this document. Future development would include LID features for storm water quality improvement where none exist today. Potential LID features may include storm water planters, permeable pavement and proprietary bioretention systems. Through the development of the project-specific Drainage Report and WQMP, which are included in Appendix H, the appropriate site design, source control, BMPs, SD-BMPS, SC- BMPs, and LID control features would be implemented to improve water quality in the Temescal Creek and Santa Ana River. As concluded in this document, all potentially significant impacts associated with development of the proposed project, including on-site and off-site stormwater drainage facilities would be less Preliminary Sewer Layout FIGURE
Skyline Heights Project 4.N-5
Source: KWC Engineers, 2014.

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

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-47
than significant after compliance with applicable regulatory requirements implementation of the project design features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (4) Solid Waste
Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Threshold Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Impact 4.N-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the project area. Further, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts in these regards to a less than significant level. (a) Construction
The proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes and associated supporting infrastructure. Project construction would involve demolition of the existing onsite structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication to be developed within three phases.

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

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

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

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

All uses within the City that generate solid waste, including the proposed project, are required to coordinate with a waste hauler to develop collection and recyclable materials for the project on a common schedule as set forth in the applicable local, regional, and state programs. Additionally, all development within the City is required to comply with applicable elements of SB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste disposal standards; thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the El Sobrante Landfill is reduced and no hazards waste is received in accordance with existing regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
(5) Consistency With Regulatory Framework
Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan and municipal code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.N-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan and the CMC). This impact is considered less than significant. (a) California Urban Water Management Plan Act
The City is consistent with the California Urban Water Management Plan Act, as evidenced by its approved 2010 UWMP. The proposed project is within the range of development anticipated in the UWMP, which indicates that the City will be able to meet future demand for water. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 24 1.79 tons per day generated by the proposed project/16,064 tons of solid waste per day permitted at the El Sobrante Landfill x 100 =

0.004 percent.

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

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

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

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

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.1.

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

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.1.

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

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

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

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

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent. See response to Policy 7.4.2.

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

Consistent. See response to Goal 7.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City is faced with various ongoing challenges in securing its future water supplies due to droughts, environmental restrictions, and climate change. The City is planning to overcome these challenges by expanding their water conservation efforts through public education, installing high efficient water fixtures, providing incentives, and expanding the City's outdoor water conservation program. To increase recycled water use, the City is expanding the recycled water distribution system to provide water for irrigation, industrial use, and groundwater recharge. Furthermore, given that the UWMP plans and provides for water supplies to serve existing and projected needs, including those of future growth and development as may occur through related projects, and that the requirements of SB 610, SB 221 and SB 7 provide means to ensure that the water supply needs of large development projects are carefully considered relative to the City’s ability to adequately meet future needs, it is anticipated that the City would be able to supply the demands of the proposed project and related projects through the foreseeable future. In addition, compliance with the City’s recommended water conservation measures would reduce the water December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-53 Table 4.N-19
Estimated Cumulative Water Demand
Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(acres)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 12.25 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11- 006) - - - - - - 2.15 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09- 004) - - 1.69 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760,
Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06- 009)
194 - - - - - -
Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12- 005)453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10-017)
60 - - - - - - Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661,
PP08-001)
442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 76 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10- 001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 0.89 4.06 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14- 001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM
29503R, PP08-008)
- - 14.0 - - 14.0 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM
34890, PP06-006)
- - - 26.6 - - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.N. Utilities and Service Systems December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-56 Table 4.N-20
Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation
Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Foremost Communities (TTM 36541) 237 - - - - - - MBK Homes and Turner Development (TTM 35590, PP07-007)
288 - - - - 12.25 - Cesar Chavez School Expansion (DPR11-006) - - - - - - 2.15 Knowleton Communities (TTM 33135) 63 - - - - - - Knowleton Communities (PM 36250, PP09- 004) - - 1.69 - - - - Rancho De Paseo Valencia (TTM 34760,
Annex 110, SPA08-005 EIR)
34 - - - - - - DJJ Development (TTM 32386) 49 - - - - - - City of Corona Successor Agency/West Coast Development (TTM 34488, PP06-009)
194 - - - - - - Corona North Main, LLC Phase II (PP12-005) 453 - - - - - - Pecuniary Capital, LLC (TTM 35851, CUP10- 017) 60 - - - - - - Mulligan-Allen & Associates (PM 35661,
PP08-001)
442 - - - - - - Sherborn, LLC (PM 33959) - - - - - 76 - Nova Homes (TTM 36533) 103 - - - - - - Cornerstone Enterprises (PM 36311, PP10- 001, CUP10-003, 004; 005) - 119 4.06 - - - - Tri-Pointe Homes (TTM 36355, CUP14-001) 146 - - - - - - Gateway Business Park Crossings (PM 29503R, PP08-008)
- - 14.0 - - 14.0 - SE Corporation Lakeshore Plaza (PM 34890, PP06-006)
- - - 26.6 - - - Meridian Dos Lagos, LP (PM 34851, PP06- 011) - - - 3.6 - - - Fu Bang Group (PM 33151, PP04-018) 92 - - - - - - Rexco Development (PP13-006) 354 - - - - - - December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.N-20 (Continued)
Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Generation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-57 Related Project
Residential
(units)
Hotel
(rooms)
Commercial/
Retail/
Restaurant
(acres)
Office
(acres)
Medical
Office
(acres)
Industrial
(acres)
School
(acres) Total
Rexco Development - - - - - 29.0 - Arrantine Hills Specific Plan (SP09-001) 1,621 - 59.1 - - 18.6 - North Main Street District 404 - - - - - - Berzansky/PB Development - - - - 3.6 - - Westliving 112 - - - - - - Vulcan Materials - - - - - 100.0 - Sanre Corporation - - - - - 3.0 - Trammell Crow - - - - - 26.34 - Griffco Land LLC 125 - - - - - - Citrus Circle Apartments 42 - - - - - - Houman /Patel - - - 1.6 - - - ASTA /Strata 45 - - - - - - Subtotal Related Projects 4,864 119 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 Proposed Project 290 - - - - - - TOTAL 5,154 119 93.86 31.80 3.60 279.19 2.15 - Cumulative Wastewater Generation Estimate a Average Day (gpd) 1,546,200 23,800 98,553 40,068 4,536 322,465 1,720 2,037,342 Peak Day (gpd)b 4,947,840 76,160 315,370 128,218 14,515 1,031,886 5,504 6,591,493 Notes: gpd = gallons per day; ac = acre. a
Wastewater generation based on sewage generation factors provided by Tom Koper, City of Corona Department of Water and Power and the City of Corona Sewer Master Plan, 2005. Rates applied include Rural Residential = 300 gpd/du; High Density = 200 gpd/du; Commercial Business District = 1,050 gpd/ac; Office Professional = 1,260 gpd/ac; General Industrial = 1,155 gpd/ac; and Institutional = 800 gpd/ac. b For the purposes of a conservative analysis, peak day flows are assumed to be 3.2 times average flows.

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

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

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

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

4. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures provided are applicable to the proposed project and would be implemented, as necessary, to ensure that impacts related to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste are less than significant.
a. Water Supply and Water Infrastructure
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP water connection fees as set forth in Section

13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC.

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

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

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

December 2015 4.N. Utilities and Service Systems
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.N-61
b. Wastewater
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP sewer connection fees as set forth in Section

13.08.600 of the CMC.
c. Solid Waste
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Municipal Operations Department prior to approval of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: In order to facilitate on-site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction activities.

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

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

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

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

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
O. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4.O-6
Impact 4.B-1 The proposed project would not directly convert, or otherwise result in the conversion of, any existing agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, or forest land to non-forest use, and would not trigger a significant impact per the LESA Model. As such, impacts related to conversion of farmland and forest land would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, as no farmland or forest land exists on the project site that could be affected by its implementation. Therefore, impacts in this regard would also be less than significant.
(2) Conflicts with Zoning or Williamson Act Contracts
Threshold Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Threshold Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Impact 4.B-2 The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or forest land or a Williamson Act contract. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

1. No Project Alternative

2. Reduced Density Alternative

3. Phase III Only Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective 7: Provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system.

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

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-3
Objective 9: Provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-5 Table 5-1
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
A. Aesthetics
Views/Scenic Vistas Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Scenic Resources Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Aesthetics/Visual Character Significant Unavoidable
Impact No Impact (Less) Significant Unavoidable Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Light and Glare Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Shade/Shadow Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
B. Air Quality
AQMP Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Violation of Air Quality Standards - Construction Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Violation of Air Quality Standards - Operational Emissions Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant
Increases Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-6 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Exposure to Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Odors Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
C. Biological Resources Special Status Species/Habitats Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Riparian Habitat/Sensitive Natural
Communities
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wetlands/Jurisdictional Features Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wildlife Corridors/Migratory Species Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Conflicts With Plans, Policies, or
Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
D. Cultural Resources
Historic Resources No Impact No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) Archaeological Resources Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-7 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Paleontological Resources Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Human Remains Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
E. Geology and Soils
Earthquake Fault Rupture, Ground
Shaking, Ground Failure, and
Landslides
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Soil Erosion Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Seismic Ground Failure Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Expansive Soils Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Septic Tanks and Alternative
Wastewater Disposal Systems Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Similar) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Similar)
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-8 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Consistency with GHG Reduction
Plans Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials Operations and
Releases Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Hazardous Materials Emissions Near
Schools Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Listed Hazardous Materials Sites Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Airport-Related Hazards No Impact No Impact (Less) No Impact (Similar) No Impact (Similar) Regulatory Consistency and
Emergency Response and Evacuation
Plans
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Wildland Fire Hazards Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Degradation/Wastewater Discharge
Requirements
Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Groundwater Resources Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-9 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Hydrology and Drainage Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Flood Hazards Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
I. Land Use and Planning
Division of Established Communities Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and
Regulations Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Conflicts with Habitat Conservation
Plans Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) J. Noise
Noise Generation and Compliance
with Noise Standards
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Groundborne Vibration and Noise Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Aircraft/Airport Noise Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-10 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
K. Population, Housing, and Employment
Population Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Housing Less Than Significant No Impact (Greater) Less Than Significant (Greater)
Less Than Significant
(Greater)
Employment Less Than Significant No Impact (Similar) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
L. Public Services
Fire Protection Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Police Protection Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Parks and Recreation Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Schools Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Libraries Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar) Less Than Significant
(Similar)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-11 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
M. Transportation
Intersection Impacts Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Roadway Segments Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Hazardous Design Features Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Emergency Access Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Parking Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
Alternative
Transportation/Regulatory
Consistency
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Similar) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Similar)
N. Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply and Infrastructure Less Than Significant With Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment
Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
Stormwater Drainage Facilities Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Solid Waste Disposal Less Than Significant With
Mitigation No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Less) Less Than Significant With
Mitigation (Less)
December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
Table 5-1 (Continued)
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
and Impacts of the Project
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-12 Environmental Issue Proposed Project
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Regulatory Consistency Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Similar)
Less Than Significant
(Similar)
O. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Farmland and Forest Land
Conversion Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Conflicts with Zoning or Williamson
Act Contracts Less Than Significant No Impact (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Less Than Significant (Less) Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Alternative would, however, eliminate significant unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character) that would otherwise occur under the proposed project.
(4) Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed with urban uses and no physical improvements to infrastructure or other facilities would occur. As such, the No Project Alternative would not achieve or partially fulfill any of the objectives of the proposed project. The proposed project’s stated objectives, as well as the ability of each project Alternative to meet them, are provided below in Table 5-2, Alternatives’ Ability to Meet Project Objectives. Specifically, as summarized in Table 5-2, the No Project Alternative would not (1) provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods; (2) build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use designations consistent with surrounding area; (3) facilitate the annexation of the project development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona; (4) provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods; (5) dedicate land and contribute fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway; (6) ensure that all community facilities and December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-17
services including circulation improvements, drainage facilities, water, reclaimed water and sewer facilities are available to serve the project and meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements prior to, or concurrent with development; (7) provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system; (8) provide water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City; (9) provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents; (10) implement a comprehensive landscape program which provides visual continuity throughout the project area and the natural areas of the Cleveland National Forest; or (11) help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004). b. Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative
(1) Description of Alternative
Alternative 2, the Reduced Density Alternative, would result in the annexation of the proposed annexation area into the City of Corona as well as the development of a single-family residential neighborhood within the 270.9-acre project site, but at a density consistent with the existing Rural Residential I land use designation prescribed in the City of Corona General Plan for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, which allows for single-family residential uses between 0.2 and 0.5 dwelling units per acre. Thus, this Alterative would allow for development of up to 136 single-family dwelling units on the 270.9-acre project site, or an overall density of approximately 0.5 dwelling units per acre, with residential lots clustered throughout the project site (as under the proposed project) in order to minimize site disturbance. It is anticipated that given the topography of the project site, substantial grading would still be required to accommodate the development, which would include grading for residential lots, building pads, graded slopes, roadways, water tank(s), and other improvements, but the physical extent and intensity of earthmoving operations would be incrementally reduced under this Alternative. This Alternative is intended to decrease the overall development footprint of the proposed project, which would result in reduced landform alteration and urban development that is visible from surrounding viewpoints, including public trails and designated scenic roadways. Although reduced in terms of overall intensity, this Alternative would result in a similar suite of roadway and other related infrastructure improvements, though the size and capacity of such facilities could be incrementally reduced relative to the proposed project. (2) Environmental Impact Categories
(a) Aesthetics
This Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project, with comparable singlefamily buildings, massing, and structural heights, but with an overall reduction in development intensity and associated grading and site disturbance. Given the fact that the development footprint would be reduced relative to the proposed project, it is anticipated that the potential for view obstructions and impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be incrementally reduced under this Alternative, but impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable based on the extent of grading that would still be required to construct a residential subdivision and related improvements. Therefore, despite the incremental reduction in grading and development intensity, impacts would be considered significant given that the development would be visible from several public vantage points, but would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Impacts related to aesthetics and visual character would also be reduced compared to the proposed project, as this Alternative would provide the same type of land uses and other improvements such

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-18
as landscaping to improve the visual character of the project site, but at a lower overall intensity. Since the development footprint under this Alternative would be smaller than under the proposed project, but would also provide features to reduce visual character effects, impacts in this regard would be considered less than under the project. Nonetheless, given the conversion of the project site from undeveloped vacant land to an urbanized residential neighborhood, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts related to light and glare and shade/shadow would likewise be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed project based on the overall reduction in density and associated need for lighting and presence of reflective surfaces. As such, impacts in this regard would remain less than significant and would be less than under the proposed project.
(b) Air Quality
In terms of air quality, the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the amount of urban development on the project site, and thus would also be consistent with the AQMP, but impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project given the reduction in on-site residential units and associated air pollutant emissions. Similarly, impacts related to violation of air quality standards during both construction and operations would be less than significant since the extent of grading and construction would be substantially reduced, and long-term operations from stationary sources (i.e., new homes) and vehicular mobile sources would also be proportionately reduced compared to the project, and thus would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures. In addition, based on the overall reduction in development intensity on-site, impacts related to cumulatively considerable pollutant increases, exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, odors, and regulatory consistency would be less than significant and reduced relative to the proposed project.
(c) Biological Resources
The Reduced Density Alternative, overall, would reduce the development footprint of the project and thus would also reduce the extent of site disturbance and associated impacts on biological resources. Impacts related to special status species and habitats on-site would be incrementally reduced compared to the project, although mitigation measures would still be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant.

Impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands/jurisdictional features would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, but would also be reduced relative to the proposed project given the reduced grading and site disturbance under this Alternative. Impacts to wildlife corridors and migratory bird species would still require mitigation to reduce them to less than significant, but such impacts would be less than under the proposed project. Lastly, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts regarding conflicts with plans, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources.
(d) Cultural Resources
This Alternative would not result in any adverse impacts to historic resources, as no such resources are located on-site, as is the case under the proposed project. While impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains would still require mitigation to ensure they are less than significant, the potential for such impacts to occur would be incrementally reduced compared to the project based on the reduction in grading and site disturbance under this Alternative. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to regulatory consistency would be less than significant, as this Alternative would comply with all applicable policies and regulations related to cultural resources.

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-19
(e) Geology and Soils
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the development intensity of proposed residential uses on- site, which would also result in a sizeable reduction in the extent of grading activities necessary to construct the proposed subdivision. Nonetheless, with a reduction in on-site population, and assuming implementation of geotechnical recommendations similar to those contained in the project Geotechnical Report, impacts related to earthquake fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides would be less than significant and would be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed project since fewer people would be exposed to such geologic hazards. Soil erosion impacts would be reduced under this Alternative given the reduction in soil disturbance and potential for erosive effects, and would be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Impacts associated with seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, and expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, but would be reduced compared to the proposed project based on the overall reduction in development intensity. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less than significant, as the project site would be served by the City’s sewer system, and thus no such systems would be required on-site. Finally, impacts related to regulatory consistency would be similar to the proposed project, as all on-site development (irrespective of density) would be required to comply with applicable seismic safety, water quality, and building code requirements, and thus impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Density Alternative would require substantially less grading and construction activity than the proposed project, and would also result in a sizeable reduction in long-term air pollutant emissions from operation of the proposed residential units. Given the reduction in short-term grading and construction activities and long-term stationary and mobile-source GHG emissions under this Alternative in comparison to the proposed project, impacts would remain less than significant and would be incrementally reduced. As construction and operation of residential development under Alternative 2 would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts and would also implement sustainability features that are supportive local and State GHG reduction goals, impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of a single-family residential community but with fewer residential units and an overall reduction in site disturbance compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed on-site development under this Alternative would have an incrementally reduced potential to result in hazards associated with hazardous materials operations and releases and hazardous materials emissions near schools, though impacts would remain less than significant. Impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites, as is the case under the proposed project, would be less than significant since no listed hazardous materials sites are located within the project boundaries or in the immediate area such that potential hazards to on-site residents could occur. No airport-related impacts would occur under this Alternative, similar to under the proposed project, based on the distance of the project site from the nearest airport (Corona Municipal Airport). Impacts regarding regulatory consistency and emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant under Alternative 2 based on the similarity of uses and reduction in overall development intensity on-site, and would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Given the reduction in on-site residential uses and associated reduction

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-20
in development footprint, impacts related to wildland fire hazards would be less than under the proposed project, though mitigation would still be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality
This Alternative would result in the same type of single-family residential development as the proposed project, but the intensity of grading, construction, and long-term operation of proposed residential uses would be incrementally reduced. Therefore, this Alternative would have a reduced potential to result in adverse impacts related to water quality degradation and wastewater discharge requirements as the extent of soil disturbance, increase in impervious surface area, and modification of natural drainage courses would be lower than under the proposed project, and as such impacts would remain less than significant. Based on a reduced development footprint and associated reduction in impervious surfaces that could restrict groundwater recharge, as well as a reduced demand for domestic water supplies (which are based in part of groundwater supplies), indirect impacts to groundwater resources would be less than under the project, but would also be less than significant. Impacts related to hydrology and drainage would still require mitigation to reduce them to less than significant, but given the reduced development intensity and extent of site disturbance, such impacts would be less than under the proposed project. Similarly, based on the reduced development footprint under this Alternative, impacts related to flood hazards would be less than under the proposed project and less than significant since less impervious surfaces would be introduced to the project site and fewer residential uses would be exposed to potential flooding effects once constructed. Lastly, as this Alternative would be required to comply with applicable policies and regulations related to hydrology and water quality, as is the case with the proposed project, impacts related to regulatory consistency would also be less than significant.
(i) Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in a similar development pattern on the project site, but at a lower overall intensity compared to the proposed project. Since the existing site is currently undeveloped and is located just outside the City’s corporate boundary adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest, there is little potential for this Alternative, as is the case for the proposed project, to result in the division of an established community and thus impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As under the proposed project, the proposed annexation area would be annexed into the City of Corona from unincorporated Riverside County, but the allowable single-family residential density would be consistent with the existing City General Plan designation of Rural Residential I for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence. This Alternative, therefore, would allow for a density of up to 0.5 dwelling units per acre, or up to 136 single-family homes on the 270.9-acre project site, compared to 292 residential units under the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.I, Land Use, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), the City’s General Plan, Corona Municipal Code (CMC), and SCAG regional plans. While this Alternative would result in a residential development at a lower density, it would still require annexation into the City and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) service area, as well as General Plan map and text amendments, a Zoning map amendment, and other approvals, as is the case with the proposed project. As such, despite the reduction in on-site development intensity under this Alternative, impacts related to consistency with applicable plans and policies would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. As also discussed in Section 4.I, although the project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan given December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-21
payment of mitigation fees. As such, given the reduced intensity of residential development under Alternative 2 within the same project boundaries, impacts would also be less than significant with payment of requisite mitigation fees, but would be reduced relative to the proposed project. (j) Noise
This Alternative would result in a similar single-family residential development pattern on the project site, but at a lower overall intensity. As such, construction activities and associated impacts related to noise generation and compliance with noise standards would be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed project, but mitigation would still be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant. Operational noise impacts under the proposed project would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measure, and therefore based on the reduction in on-site development intensity, operational noise impacts of this Alternative would also be less than significant and less than under the project. Similarly, impacts related to groundborne noise and vibration would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 2, and would be less than significant. Impacts associated with aircraft, airport noise, and regulatory consistency would also be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, and would be similar to under the proposed project.
(k) Population, Housing, and Employment
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the construction and operation of up to 136 single-family dwelling units on the project site, which would translate to a direct population growth of 479 people on the project site (3.52 persons per household x 136 dwelling units = 478.7), compared to 1,028 people under the proposed project. Given that this Alternative would result in less than half of the direct population growth of the proposed project, impacts to population growth would be less than the proposed project and would be less than significant. Conversely, this Alternative would result in the provision of less than half of the housing units of the proposed project, and therefore although the housing growth under Alternative 2 would be well within the SCAG growth projections for the City, subregion, and entire SCAG region, it would not help the City meet its State-mandated housing goals to the extent the proposed project would. As such, housing impacts under Alternative 2 are considered to be greater than those of the proposed project, though such impacts would remain less than significant. Lastly, with regard to employment growth, neither the proposed project nor Alternative 2 provide any on-site employment opportunities, and therefore impacts under this Alternative would be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than significant. (l) Public Services
This Alternative would result in the same type of residential uses within the project site, but the intensity of development would be substantially reduced. As such, the associated demands on public services and facilities such as fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreational facilities, schools, and libraries would be incrementally reduced within each respective service area. Impacts under Alternative 2, therefore, would be reduced compared to the proposed project, though mitigation measures would still be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant. In addition, impacts regarding regulatory consistency would also be less than significant and would be similar to the proposed project.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-22
(m) Transportation/Traffic
This Alternative would require considerably less grading and construction activities than the proposed project, and thus would generate fewer construction-related vehicle trips. Since the project would result in less than significant construction-related traffic system impacts given implementation of a project-specific Construction Management Plan, which would also be required under this Alternative, impacts would also be less than significant and less than under the proposed project. Operational traffic impacts would also be incrementally reduced given the reduced overall development intensity on-site. Specifically, impacts to intersections under Existing With Project, Year 2020, and Year 2035 conditions would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, if necessary given the reduced traffic volumes, and impacts overall would be less than under the proposed project. Similarly, impacts to roadway segments would be reduced compared to the proposed project given the reduction in vehicle trip generation, and impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, though specific project design features would still be implemented, as appropriate. In addition, impacts related to hazardous design features, emergency access, and parking would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project. Lastly, similar to the project, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts regarding alternative transportation and regulatory consistency with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.
(n) Utilities and Service Systems
This Alternative would result in the same type of single-family residential development as the proposed project, but at a lower overall intensity. Since the proposed project was determined to result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities and services with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and this Alternative would result in reduced demands within the same service area boundaries of affected utilities and service providers, impacts would also be less than significant under this Alternative, though mitigation measures would still be required. As relates to stormwater drainage facilities, impacts under the project were determined to be less than significant given compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of site-specific BMPs related to water quality. As such, given the reduced development footprint and associated impervious surface area under this Alternative, impacts would also be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project. Impacts regarding regulatory consistency would be comparable to those under the proposed project, and would be considered less than significant.
(o) Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the project site would be graded and developed with a new singlefamily residential community, but at a lower overall intensity than the proposed project. As summarized in Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of this Draft EIR, the project was determined to result in less than significant impacts related to farmland and forest land conversion, and impacts regarding conflicts with zoning for agriculture or forestry uses or Williamson Act contracts. As such, based on the similarity of residential land uses and the overall reduction in development intensity, impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant and less than under the proposed project. (3) Impact Summary
As summarized above in Table 5-1, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics (views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, aesthetics/visual character, light and glare, and December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-23
shade/shadow), air quality (AQMP consistency, violation of air quality standards, cumulatively considerable pollutant increases, exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, and odors), biological resources (special status species/habitats, riparian habitat/sensitive natural communities, wetlands/jurisdictional features, and wildlife corridors/migratory species), cultural resources (archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains), geology and soils (earthquake fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, landslides, soil erosion, liquefaction, and expansive soils), greenhouse gas emissions (greenhouse gas emissions), hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous materials operations and releases, hazardous materials emissions near schools, regulatory consistency and emergency response and evacuation plans, and wildland fire hazards), hydrology and water quality (water quality degradation/wastewater discharge requirements, groundwater resources, hydrology and drainage, and flood hazards), land use and planning (conflicts with habitat conservation plans), noise (noise generation and compliance with noise standards and groundborne noise and vibration), population/housing/employment (population growth), public services (fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, schools, and libraries), transportation (intersection impacts and roadway segment impacts), utilities and service systems (water supply and infrastructure, wastewater conveyance and treatment, stormwater drainage facilities, and solid waste disposal), and agriculture and forestry resources (farmland and forest land conversion and conflicts with zoning or Williamson Act contracts). This Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project with regard to aesthetics (regulatory consistency), air quality (regulatory consistency), biological resources (conflicts with plans, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources), cultural resources (historic resources and regulatory consistency), geology and soils (septic tanks/alternative wastewater disposal systems and regulatory consistency), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with GHG reduction plans), hazards and hazardous materials (listed hazardous materials sites and airport-related hazards), hydrology and water quality (regulatory consistency), land use and planning (division of established communities and consistency with plans, policies, and regulations), noise (aircraft/airport noise and regulatory consistency), population/housing/employment (employment growth and regulatory consistency), public services (regulatory consistency), transportation (hazardous design features, emergency access, parking, and alternative transportation/regulatory consistency), and utilities and service systems (regulatory consistency). This Alternative would result in greater impacts associated with population/housing/employment (housing growth), as it would provide fewer housing units on the project site. Although this Alternative would, overall, result in a reduction in the severity of impacts for nearly all environmental issues, it would not eliminate the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character. (4) Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives The Reduced Density Alternative would develop a single-family residential community on the project site, but at a substantially reduced intensity, which would provide less than half of the residential units than the proposed project on the property. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would fully meet the following project objectives: (Objective 1) provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods; (Objective 2) build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use designations consistent with surrounding area; (Objective 3) facilitate the annexation of the project development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona; (Objective 4) provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods; (Objective 5) dedicate land and contribute fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway; (Objective 6) ensure that all community facilities and services including circulation improvements, drainage facilities, water, reclaimed water and sewer facilities are available to serve the project and meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements prior to, or concurrent with development; (Objective 9)

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-24
provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents; and (Objective 10) implement a comprehensive landscape program which provides visual continuity throughout the project area and the natural areas of the Cleveland National Forest. Given the reduction in residential development and associated infrastructure improvements, Alternative 2 would only partially achieve the following project objectives: (Objective 7) provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system; (Objective 8) provide water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City; and (Objective 11) help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004).
c. Alternative 3 – Phase III Only Alternative
(1) Description of Alternative
The Phase III Only Alternative is being proposed in order to address the significant unavoidable impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character that would occur under the proposed project. The Phase III Only Alternative involves the development of single-family residential uses with a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size, as under the proposed project, but only within the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon. This development pattern is identical to Phase III improvements under the proposed project, and would only require infrastructure improvements to serve that portion of the project site, with the remaining property south of Mabey Canyon being left in its current undeveloped condition. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in the development of up to 45 single-family residential units and associated infrastructure including streets, water and sewer facilities, storm drains and water quality BMPs, landscaping, lighting, and other improvements. It should be noted that given the existing topography within the Phase III portion of the project site, extensive soil excavation and removal would be required to prepare the site for urban development, which would substantially increase the number and frequency of haul truck trips to and from the site. By comparison, under the proposed project the cut soil material from the Phase III area would be utilized as fill material elsewhere within the project site, as no off- site soil import or export would be required. Under this Alternative, it is assumed that the entire proposed annexation area is annexed into the City of Corona, but only the Phase III potion of the 270.9-acre project site would be developed with urban uses.
(2) Environmental Impact Categories
(a) Aesthetics
This Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project, with comparable singlefamily buildings, massing, and structural heights, but with a substantial reduction in development intensity and associated grading and site disturbance with development only occurring at the lower project site elevations north of Mabey Canyon. Given the location of the Phase III portion of the project site relative to public viewpoints (including scenic roadways), the lower elevation and presence of intervening topography, vegetation, and urban development, it is anticipated that the potential for view obstructions and impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be substantially reduced under this Alternative, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant, thereby avoiding a significant impact under the proposed project.

Impacts related to aesthetics and visual character would also be reduced compared to the proposed project, as this Alternative would provide the same type of land uses and other improvements such as landscaping to improve the visual character of the project site, but at a much lower overall intensity. Since the development December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-25
footprint under this Alternative would be much smaller than under the proposed project and development would be limited to the area north of Mabey Canyon, and the development would also provide features to reduce visual character effects, impacts in this regard would be considered less than under the project. As such, despite the conversion of this portion of the project site from undeveloped vacant land to an urbanized residential neighborhood, impacts would be considered less than significant since the extent of landform alteration and visibility of the site from the surrounding area would be considerably reduced. Impacts related to light and glare and shade/shadow would likewise be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project based on the overall reduction in density and associated need for lighting and presence of reflective surfaces. As such, impacts in this regard would remain less than significant and would be less than under the proposed project.
(b) Air Quality
In terms of air quality, the Phase III Only Alternative would greatly reduce the amount of urban development on the project site, and thus would also be consistent with the AQMP, but impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project given the reduction in on-site residential units and associated air pollutant emissions. Similarly, impacts related to violation of air quality standards during both construction and operations would be less than significant since the extent of grading and construction would be substantially reduced, and long-term operations from stationary sources (i.e., new homes) and vehicular mobile sources (i.e., worker vehicles and material and equipment deliveries) would also be proportionately reduced compared to the project, and thus would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures. However, off-site construction-related truck trips for soil export would be substantially increased relative to the proposed project, since this Alternative would require off-site export and disposal of cut soils necessary to prepare the site for development of residential uses. No off-site soil transport is required for the proposed project, as all earthwork would be balanced on-site, and therefore the additional truck haul trips associated with this Alternative would represent an additional mobile emissions source during construction activities. However, based on the overall reduction in development intensity on-site, impacts related to cumulatively considerable pollutant increases, exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, odors, and regulatory consistency would be less than significant and reduced relative to the proposed project.
(c) Biological Resources
The Phase III Only Alternative, overall, would greatly reduce the development footprint of the project and thus would also reduce the extent of site disturbance and associated impacts on biological resources.

Impacts related to special status species and habitats on-site would be substantially reduced compared to the project, as the entire portion of the project site south of Mabey Canyon would be left in its current state, although mitigation measures would still be required to reduce impacts to resources north of Mabey Canyon to less than significant. Impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands/ jurisdictional features would also be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, but would also be substantially reduced relative to the proposed project given the reduced grading and site disturbance under this Alternative. Impacts to wildlife corridors and migratory bird species would still require mitigation to reduce them to less than significant, but such impacts would be much less than under the proposed project. Lastly, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts regarding conflicts with plans, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-26
(d) Cultural Resources
This Alternative would not result in any adverse impacts to historic resources, as no such resources are located on-site, as is the case under the proposed project. While impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains would still require mitigation to ensure they are less than significant, the potential for such impacts to occur would be substantially reduced compared to the project based on the reduction in grading and site disturbance under this Alternative. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to regulatory consistency would be less than significant, as this Alternative would comply with all applicable policies and regulations related to cultural resources. (e) Geology and Soils
The Phase III Only Alternative would reduce the development intensity of proposed residential uses on-site, which would also result in a sizeable reduction in the extent of grading activities necessary to construct the proposed subdivision. Nonetheless, with a reduction in on-site population, and assuming implementation of geotechnical recommendations similar to those contained in the project Geotechnical Report, impacts related to earthquake fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides would be less than significant and would be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed project since fewer people would be exposed to such geologic hazards. Soil erosion impacts would be reduced under this Alternative given the reduction in soil disturbance and potential for erosive effects, and would be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Impacts associated with seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, and expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, but would be reduced compared to the proposed project based on the overall reduction in development intensity. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less than significant, as the project site would be served by the City’s sewer system, and thus no such systems would be required on-site. Finally, impacts related to regulatory consistency would be similar to the proposed project, as all on-site development would be required to comply with applicable seismic safety, water quality, and building code requirements, and thus impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Phase III Only Alternative would require substantially less grading and construction activity than the proposed project, and would also result in a sizeable reduction in long-term air pollutant emissions from operation of the proposed residential units. Given the reduction in short-term grading and construction activities and long-term stationary and mobile-source GHG emissions under this Alternative in comparison to the proposed project, impacts would remain less than significant and would be substantially reduced. As construction and operation of residential development under Alternative 3 would result in less than significant GHG emissions impacts and would also implement sustainability features that are supportive local and State GHG reduction goals, impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Phase III Only Alternative would result in the development of a single-family residential community but with much fewer residential units and a considerable overall reduction in site disturbance compared to the proposed project, with only the portion of the project site north of Mabey Canyon subject to urban development. Therefore, the proposed on-site development under this Alternative would have a December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-27
substantially reduced potential to result in hazards associated with hazardous materials operations and releases and hazardous materials emissions near schools, and impacts would remain less than significant.

Impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites, as is the case under the proposed project, would be less than significant since no listed hazardous materials sites are located within the project boundaries or in the immediate area such that potential hazards to on-site residents could occur. No airport-related impacts would occur under this Alternative, similar to under the proposed project, based on the distance of the project site from the nearest airport (Corona Municipal Airport). Impacts regarding regulatory consistency and emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant under Alternative 3 based on the similarity of uses and sizeable reduction in overall development intensity on-site, and would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project. Given the reduction in on-site residential uses and associated reduction in development footprint, impacts related to wildland fire hazards would be less than under the proposed project, though mitigation would still be required to reduce impacts to less than significant.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality
This Alternative would result in the same type of single-family residential development as the proposed project, but the intensity of grading, construction, and long-term operation of proposed residential uses would be substantially reduced. Therefore, this Alternative would have a reduced potential to result in adverse impacts related to water quality degradation and wastewater discharge requirements as the extent of soil disturbance, increase in impervious surface area, and modification of natural drainage courses would be much lower than under the proposed project, and as such impacts would remain less than significant.

Based on a reduced development footprint and associated reduction in impervious surfaces that could restrict groundwater recharge, as well as a reduced demand for domestic water supplies (which are based in part of groundwater supplies), indirect impacts to groundwater resources would be less than under the project, but would also be less than significant. Impacts related to hydrology and drainage would still require mitigation to reduce them to less than significant, but given the substantially reduced development intensity and extent of site disturbance, such impacts would be less than under the proposed project.

Similarly, based on the reduced development footprint under this Alternative, impacts related to flood hazards would be less than under the proposed project and less than significant since less impervious surfaces would be introduced to the project site and fewer residential uses would be exposed to potential flooding effects once constructed. Lastly, as this Alternative would be required to comply with applicable policies and regulations related to hydrology and water quality, as is the case with the proposed project, impacts related to regulatory consistency would also be less than significant. (i) Land Use and Planning
The Phase III Only Alternative would result in a similar development pattern on the project site, but at a lower overall intensity compared to the proposed project. Since the existing site is currently undeveloped and is located just outside the City’s corporate boundary adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest, there is little potential for this Alternative, as is the case for the proposed project, to result in the division of an established community and thus impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As under the proposed project, the proposed annexation area would be annexed into the City of Corona from unincorporated Riverside County, and the entire 270.9-acre project site would be designated for Low Density Residential uses and zoned R1-7.2 per the City’s Zoning Code, though only the Phase III portion of the site would be developed with urban uses. This Alternative, therefore, would allow for a density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre, but would only provide 45 single-family homes on the approximately 39-acre Phase

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-28
III portion of the project site, compared to 292 residential units under the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.I, Land Use, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), the City’s General Plan, Corona Municipal Code (CMC), and SCAG regional plans. While this Alternative would result in a residential development at a much lower intensity, it would still require annexation into the City and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) service area, as well as General Plan map and text amendments, a Zoning map amendment, and other approvals, as is the case with the proposed project. As such, despite the reduction in on-site development intensity under this Alternative, impacts related to consistency with applicable plans and policies would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. As also discussed in Section 4.I, although the project site is located within the Temescal Canyon Area Plan of the WRC MSHCP, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan given payment of mitigation fees. As such, given the reduced intensity of residential development under Alternative 3 within the same project boundaries, impacts would also be less than significant with payment of requisite mitigation fees, but would be reduced relative to the proposed project.
(j) Noise
This Alternative would result in a similar single-family residential development pattern on the project site, but at a much lower overall intensity. As such, construction activities and associated impacts related to noise generation and compliance with noise standards would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project, but mitigation would still be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant. Operational noise impacts under the proposed project would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measure, and therefore based on the reduction in on-site development intensity, operational noise impacts of this Alternative would also be less than significant and less than under the project. Similarly, impacts related to groundborne noise and vibration would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 3, and would be less than significant. Impacts associated with aircraft, airport noise, and regulatory consistency would also be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, and would be similar to under the proposed project.
(k) Population, Housing, and Employment
The Phase III Only Alternative would result in the construction and operation of up to 45 single-family dwelling units on the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon, which would translate to a direct population growth of 158 people on the project site (3.52 persons per household x 45 dwelling units = 158.4), compared to 1,028 people under the proposed project. Given that this Alternative would result in approximately 15 percent of the direct population growth of the proposed project, impacts to population growth would be much less than the proposed project and would be less than significant. Conversely, this Alternative would result in the provision of less than one-fifth of the housing units of the proposed project, and therefore although the housing growth under Alternative 3 would be well within the SCAG growth projections for the City, subregion, and entire SCAG region, it would not help the City meet its State- mandated housing goals to the extent the proposed project would. As such, housing impacts under Alternative 3 are considered to be greater than those of the proposed project, though such impacts would remain less than significant. Lastly, with regard to employment growth, neither the proposed project nor Alternative 3 provide any on-site employment opportunities, and therefore impacts under this Alternative would be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-29
(l) Public Services
This Alternative would result in the same type of residential uses within the project site, but the intensity of development would be substantially reduced and limited to the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon. As such, the associated demands on public services and facilities such as fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreational facilities, schools, and libraries would be substantially reduced within each respective service area. Impacts under Alternative 3, therefore, would be greatly reduced compared to the proposed project, though mitigation measures would still be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant. In addition, impacts regarding regulatory consistency would also be less than significant and would be similar to the proposed project. (m) Transportation/Traffic
Overall, this Alternative would require considerably less grading and construction activities than the proposed project, and thus would generate fewer construction-related vehicle trips. Since the project would result in less than significant construction-related traffic system impacts given implementation of a project- specific Construction Management Plan, which would also be required under this Alternative, impacts would also be less than significant and less than under the proposed project. It should be noted, however, that implementation of this Alternative would require off-site transport and disposal of excavated/cut soil materials from the site, as it would not be possible to balance all earthwork on-site as would occur under the proposed project. The addition of off-site soil haul truck trips would be expected to substantially increase the number and frequency of construction-related truck traffic on a given construction day relative to the proposed project, though the overall duration and intensity of construction activities would be reduced under this Alternative. Operational traffic impacts would also be substantially reduced given the reduced overall development intensity on-site (approximately 15 percent of the residential units as under the proposed project). Specifically, impacts to intersections under Existing With Project, Year 2020, and Year 2035 conditions would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, if necessary given the reduced traffic volumes, and impacts overall would be much less than under the proposed project. Similarly, impacts to roadway segments would be considerably reduced compared to the proposed project given the reduction in vehicle trip generation, and impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures, though specific project design features would still be implemented, as appropriate. In addition, impacts related to hazardous design features, emergency access, and parking would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project. Lastly, similar to the project, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts regarding alternative transportation and regulatory consistency with implementation of applicable mitigation measures (if necessary). (n) Utilities and Service Systems This Alternative would result in the same type of single-family residential development as the proposed project, but at a lower overall intensity. Since the proposed project was determined to result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities and services with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and this Alternative would result in considerably reduced demands within the same service area boundaries of affected utilities and service providers, impacts would also be less than significant under this Alternative, though mitigation measures would still be required. As relates to stormwater drainage facilities, impacts under the project were determined to be less than significant given compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of site-specific BMPs related to water quality.

As such, given the reduced development footprint and associated impervious surface area under this Alternative, impacts would also be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-30
Impacts regarding regulatory consistency would be comparable to those under the proposed project, and would be considered less than significant.
(o) Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Under the Phase III Only Alternative, only the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon would be graded and developed with a new single-family residential community at the same density proposed under the project for this part of the site. As summarized in Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of this Draft EIR, the project was determined to result in less than significant impacts related to farmland and forest land conversion, and impacts regarding conflicts with zoning for agriculture or forestry uses or Williamson Act contracts. As such, based on the similarity of residential land uses and the overall reduction in development intensity, impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant and less than under the proposed project.
(3) Impact Summary
As summarized above in Table 5-1, the Phase III Only Alternative would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics (views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, aesthetics/visual character, light and glare, and shade/shadow), air quality (AQMP consistency, violation of air quality standards, cumulatively considerable pollutant increases, exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, and odors), biological resources (special status species/habitats, riparian habitat/sensitive natural communities, wetlands/jurisdictional features, and wildlife corridors/migratory species), cultural resources (archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains), geology and soils (earthquake fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, landslides, soil erosion, liquefaction, and expansive soils), greenhouse gas emissions (greenhouse gas emissions), hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous materials operations and releases, hazardous materials emissions near schools, regulatory consistency and emergency response and evacuation plans, and wildland fire hazards), hydrology and water quality (water quality degradation/wastewater discharge requirements, groundwater resources, hydrology and drainage, and flood hazards), land use and planning (conflicts with habitat conservation plans), noise (noise generation and compliance with noise standards and groundborne noise and vibration), population/housing/employment (population growth), public services (fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, schools, and libraries), transportation (intersection impacts and roadway segment impacts), utilities and service systems (water supply and infrastructure, wastewater conveyance and treatment, stormwater drainage facilities, and solid waste disposal), and agriculture and forestry resources (farmland and forest land conversion and conflicts with zoning or Williamson Act contracts). This Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project with regard to aesthetics (regulatory consistency), air quality (regulatory consistency), biological resources (conflicts with plans, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources), cultural resources (historic resources and regulatory consistency), geology and soils (septic tanks/alternative wastewater disposal systems and regulatory consistency), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with GHG reduction plans), hazards and hazardous materials (listed hazardous materials sites and airport-related hazards), hydrology and water quality (regulatory consistency), land use and planning (division of established communities and consistency with plans, policies, and regulations), noise (aircraft/airport noise and regulatory consistency), population/housing/employment (employment growth and regulatory consistency), public services (regulatory consistency), transportation (hazardous design features, emergency access, parking, and alternative transportation/regulatory consistency), and utilities and service systems (regulatory consistency). This Alternative would result in greater impacts associated with population/housing/employment (housing growth), as it would provide fewer housing units on the project December 2015 5.0 Alternatives
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-31
site. Overall, this Alternative would result in a substantial reduction in the severity of impacts for nearly all environmental issues, and more importantly, would also avoid the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character. (4) Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives The Phase III Only Alternative would develop a single-family residential community on the portion of the project site located north of Mabey Canyon, but at a substantially reduced intensity, which would provide just over 15 percent of the residential units as the proposed project. Therefore, the Phase III Only Alternative would fully meet the following project objectives: (Objective 1) provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods; (Objective 2) build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use designations consistent with surrounding area; (Objective 3) facilitate the annexation of the project development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona; (Objective 4) provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods; (Objective 6) ensure that all community facilities and services including circulation improvements, drainage facilities, water, reclaimed water and sewer facilities are available to serve the project and meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements prior to, or concurrent with development; and (Objective 10) implement a comprehensive landscape program which provides visual continuity throughout the project area and the natural areas of the Cleveland National Forest. Given the reduction in residential development and associated infrastructure improvements, and limited area for usable open space north of Mabey Canyon, Alternative 3 would only partially achieve the following project objectives: (Objective 5) dedicate land and contribute fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway; (Objective 7) provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system; (Objective 8) provide water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City; (Objective 9) provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents; and (Objective 11) help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004).
d. Environmentally Superior Alternative
As identified above in Table 5-1, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all reduce the severity of the majority of projectrelated impacts. However, only Alternatives 1 and 3 would fully eliminate the significant unavoidable aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, including impacts to views/scenic vistas, scenic resources, and aesthetics/visual character. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate impacts associated with all but three remaining environmental topics (historic resources, housing growth and employment growth), as no development would occur under this Alternative.

CEQA requires that the Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified in the EIR. Based on the analysis in this chapter and the summary contained in Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative is determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although Alternative 1 is considered the Environmental Superior Alternative, this Alternative would not satisfy any of the identified project objectives, as shown below in Table 5-2, as it would not provide any new housing opportunities or related infrastructure improvements or achieve any of the other project objectives.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-32
However, Alternative 3, the Phase III Only Alternative, would at least partially achieve all of the 11 stated project objectives, as shown below in Table 5-2, but would only fully achieve six of them. Although this Alternative would not provide nearly as much housing, infrastructure, open space, and other improvements on-site as under the proposed project, it would still provide additional single-family housing stock within the City which would be contiguous with existing single-family residential development and future development along the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. Therefore, Alternative 3 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, Alternative 3 would not dedicate as much land or contribute as many fees for the construction of Foothill Parkway based on the substantial reduction in development intensity and lack of physical development south of Mabey Canyon along the proposed Foothill Parkway Extension corridor. Alternative 3 would also not provide as many strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system, provide as many water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City, or provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents within areas south of Mabey Canyon. Lastly, the Phase III Only Alternative would not help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County or meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan to the extent the proposed project would, as it would only provide approximately 15 percent of the residential units on the project site.

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-33 Table 5-2
Alternatives’ Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Project Objective
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Objective 1: Provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods. Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 2: Build residential housing which is in compliance with proposed zoning and Corona General Plan land use
designations consistent with surrounding area.

Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 3: Facilitate the annexation of the project
development and adjacent lands into the City of Corona. Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 4: Provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 5: Dedicate land and contribute fees for the
construction of Foothill Parkway. Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Partially Meets Objective Objective 6: Ensure that all community facilities and services including circulation improvements, drainage facilities, water, reclaimed water and sewer facilities are available to serve the project and meet or exceed applicable City standards and requirements prior to, or concurrent with development.

Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 7: Provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system.

Does Not Meet Objective Partially Meets Objective Partially Meets Objective Objective 8: Provide water reservoirs and infrastructure to improve service and reliability for other parts of the City. Does Not Meet Objective Partially Meets Objective Partially Meets Objective Objective 9: Provide a system of open space which combines natural and man-made areas to maintain a scenic and fire safe living environment for residents.

Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Partially Meets Objective

5.0 Alternatives December 2015
Table 5-2 (Continued)
Alternatives’ Ability to Meet Project Goals and Objectives City of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 5-34 Project Objective
Alternative 1
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3
Phase III Only Alternative
Objective 10: Implement a comprehensive landscape program which provides visual continuity throughout the project area and the natural areas of the Cleveland National Forest.

Does Not Meet Objective Fully Meets Objective Fully Meets Objective Objective 11: Help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004).

Does Not Meet Objective Partially Meets Objective Partially Meets Objective Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2015

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-1

6. OTHER MANDATORY CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes the findings with respect to significant, unavoidable environmental impacts; irreversible environmental changes; growth inducing impacts; potential secondary effects; and less than significant impacts of the proposed project. 1. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. Following is a summary of the impacts associated with the proposed project that were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. These impacts are also described in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.

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

2. REASONS WHY THE PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED, NOTWITHSTANDING

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
In addition to identification of the project’s significant unavoidable impacts, Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires a description of the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding significant unavoidable impacts associated with the project. As described further below, the proposed project is being proposed, notwithstanding its significant unavoidable impacts, because: 1) the proposed project would achieve a considerable number of City-related project objectives; and 2) the significant unavoidable impacts are based on landform alteration and in two cases, typical of those that would occur with any construction at the project site.

The reasons why this particular project has been proposed are identified in the Project Objectives subsection in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. The underlying purpose of the proposed project is to provide high quality residential development consistent with adjacent neighborhoods. However, the proposed project’s individual objectives include the following:

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

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

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

6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-2
Objective 4: Provide efficient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians with minimum intrusion on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

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

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

Objective 7: Provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system.

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

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

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

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

Two of the proposed project’s significant unavoidable impacts are limited to nature and are typical of impacts occurring during construction activities at development projects. Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant impact to views/scenic vistas, as well as aesthetics/visual character since it would: (1) alter the existing natural viewshed, including changes in natural terrain; (2) alter the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate visual resources (e.g., natural topography and vegetation on the project site); (3) obstruct or permanently reduce visually important features (e.g., on-site natural terrain; and (4) result in long-term adverse visual changes or contrasts to the existing landscape as viewed from areas with high visual sensitivity (e.g., designated scenic roadways such as Chase Avenue and publicly accessible trails such as the Skyline Drive Trail). Overall, the proposed development would replace the views of the existing undeveloped foothills with views of a residential subdivision and associated graded slopes, structures, and landscaping. While the project would grade the slopes so as to appear natural and the project would include extensive landscaping, the change in the natural environmental would be considered a significant change to the existing views/scenic vistas, visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.

Alternatives to the proposed project were considered in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR. Among those alternatives, only one feasible alternative other than the No Project Alternative (Alternative 3, the Phase III Only Alternative) is identified that would reduce the significant unavoidable effects of the proposed project. However, none of the Alternatives would achieve the objectives to the extent the proposed project would. Given the substantial landform alteration of the project site required to implement the proposed project, impacts related to views/scenic vistas, visual resources, and visual character would be significant December 2015 6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-3
and unavoidable. Finally, since the No Project Alternative would not meet the underlying purpose of the project, it is not considered a feasible project Alternative. 3. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the proposed project be implemented. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c):
“[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
The future implementation of the proposed project would necessarily consume limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources. This consumption would occur during the construction of future project phases and would continue throughout the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Project development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site. Future construction would also require the consumption of resources that are non-replenishable or may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: certain types of lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand, gravel and stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials such as plastics; and water. Furthermore, nonrenewable fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment, as well as the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site.

Project operation would continue to expend nonrenewable resources that are currently consumed within the City of Corona. These include energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle-trips, fossil fuels, and water. Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both construction and ongoing operation of the project, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Project operation would occur in accordance with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, as wells as numerous local regulations and proposed project design features which establish conservation practices that would limit the amount of energy consumed by the project. However, the energy requirements associated with the project would still represent a long-term commitment of essentially nonrenewable resources.

Limited use of potentially hazardous materials typical of residential uses, including household and vehicle maintenance materials (i.e., cleaning supplies, paints, fertilizers, oil, and grease) would be used and stored within the project area. The use of these materials would be in small quantities and used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable government regulations and standards.

6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-4
In summary, project construction and operation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would incrementally limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project.

However, continued use of such resources would be on a very small scale and consistent with regional and local growth forecasts in the area, as well as state and local goals for reductions in the consumption of such resources. Further, the project would not affect access to existing resources, nor interfere with the production or delivery of such resources. As such, although irreversible environmental changes would result from the Project, such changes would not be considered significant.

4. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could significantly affect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

The proposed project includes the development of 292 single-family residences on an approximately 270.9- acre site within an undeveloped hillside area to the south/southwest of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The project site is currently located within the City of Corona sphere of influence in unincorporated Riverside County. In order to facilitate the residential development and the completion of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension, the Applicant proposes the annexation of the project site and surrounding parcels totaling approximately 394.8 acres to the City of Corona. Of the approximately 270.9- acre project site, approximately 21.38 acres would be used as right-of-way for the construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. The City of Corona is currently implementing a Capital Improvement Project for the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension between Green River Road and Trudy Way. This roadway would provide primary access to the project site at “P” Street, “B” Street (aligned with Border Avenue) and Trudy Way. As indicated in Section 4.K, Population, Housing, and Employment, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project includes the construction of 292 single-family homes that would generate a population of approximately 1,028 residents. The increase of 1,028 residents to the City would represent a total of 6.193 percent, 0.086 percent, and 0.024 percent of the population growth projected by SCAG for the local, subregional, and regional areas, respectively, between the years of 2008 and 2035. These percent increases do not exceed the forecasted growth set forth by SCAG. In addition, the project population growth would not substantially alter the location or growth rate of the population projected and forecasted for the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and SCAG region. By adding new housing units to the general housing supply, the Project would support applicable housing policies of the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and housing allocation goals of the RHNA, and would substantially help meet the housing demands of the growing population of the City by contributing to housing availability and opportunity in the project area. The proposed project would represent 6.952 percent, 0.071 percent, and 0.019 percent of household growth projected by SCAG for the local, subregional, and regional areas between the years of 2008 and 2035, respectively. The demand of additional housing units is well within the SCAG housing growth projections for the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and the SCAG region. By creating new housing units within the December 2015 6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-5
project area, the proposed project would support applicable housing policies of SCAG’s RTP/SCS and housing allocation goals of the RHNA, and would substantially help meet the housing demands of the growing population of the City. Project implementation would not directly generate new job opportunities to the City. The local area, subregional area, and regional area would be considered “job rich” with a housing deficit that would not meet the ideal 1.25 job/housing ratio. As population continues to increase in the City, the Western Riverside subregion, and the SCAG region, employment demands would be met as there would be a job surplus, but new homes would 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. The proposed would introduce up to 292 residential units, which would be able to provide housing for residents and help make up for the high job/housing ratio within the City.

The project site is located in an area surrounded by urbanized land, and is served by current infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities), and community service facilities (e.g., police, fire, schools, and libraries). The project’s only infrastructure improvements would consist of tie-ins to, and extensions of, the existing utility main-lines already serving the project area.

Therefore, the project would not spur additional growth in Corona other than that already anticipated in the SCAG growth forecasts, and would not eliminate impediments to growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not foster growth inducing impacts.

5. POTENTIAL SECONDARY EFFECTS
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines requires mitigation measures to be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project if the mitigation measure(s) would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed. With regard to this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the project’s proposed mitigation measures that could cause potential impacts were evaluated. The following provides a discussion of the potential secondary effects that could occur as a result of the implementation of the project mitigation measures, listed by environmental issue area. a. Air Quality
Impacts regarding air quality are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
b. Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires vegetation and general wildlife impact areas and avoidance areas to be flagged or fenced prior to grubbing of any vegetation or jurisdictional drainage features to prevent incursion into unsurveyed or avoided areas. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 prevents impacts to sensitive wildlife by avoiding clearing or other work in native habitats during critical nesting periods. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires surveys for the burrowing owl. Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5 requires all heavy equipment to be washed prior to entering the project site from other construction sites to prevent the spread of weedy species and for staging areas to be placed in areas that have been previously disturbed. Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO-8 provide mitigation for loss of non-wetland federal jurisdictional drainage features and streambed and riparian vegetation. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 requires the employment of standard best management practices (BMPs) to prevent discharged from entering avoided waters of the U.S. and

6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-6
streambed with associated riparian vegetation during construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-10 requires replacement of oak trees at no less than 1:1 ratio in landscaped areas. Mitigation Measure BIO-11 requires preservation of the ten acres of natural habitat identified as a compensation parcel adjacent to Forest Service land. Mitigation Measure BIO-12 requires mitigation for the 6.17 acres of Riparian/Riverine impacts. These mitigation measures would minimize or avoid overall losses of sensitive resources and would not result in any significant secondary effects.
c. Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 requires monitoring, recovery, and documentation of any recovered archaeological or paleontological resources. These measures are intended to preserve on-site cultural resources and would not have any secondary adverse effects either on- or off-site. d. Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23 require implementation of all applicable recommendations contained in Section 9.0, Earthwork Conclusions and Recommendations, of the project Geotechnical Report, which would address site-specific geologic hazards to future on-site development. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic. e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
f. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. To ensure that impacts remain below the threshold, Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 from Section 4.I, Public Services, are recommended.

Mitigation Measure PS-1 requires the project Applicant to obtain CFD review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure PS-2 requires the project Applicant to pay the required service and development fees. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
g. Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires review and approval by the City of the engineering plans for the Drainage Management Area C. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic.
h. Land Use and Planning
Impacts regarding land use and planning are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.

December 2015 6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-7
i. Noise
Mitigation Measure NS-1 requires restricted hours for construction and demolition. Mitigation Measure NS- 2 requires noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible to be conducted as far as possible from nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land use.

Mitigation Measure NS-3 requires construction and demolition activities to be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Mitigation Measure NS-4 requires the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation to be minimized.

Mitigation Measure NS-5 requires the project contractor to use power construction equipment with state-ofthe-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Mitigation Measure NS-6 requires barriers to minimize the amount of noise to the maximum extent feasible during construction. Mitigation Measure NS-7 requires all construction truck traffic to be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure NS-8 requires notification about estimated duration and hours of construction activities to all adjacent land uses within 300 feet. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic. j. Population, Housing, and Employment
Impacts regarding population, housing, and employment are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
k. Public Services
(1) Fire
Mitigation Measure PS-1 requires the project Applicant to obtain CFD review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure PS-2 requires the project Applicant to pay the required service and development fees. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
(2) Police
Mitigation Measure PS-3 requires the project Applicant to reserve a portion of the project site for a future radio facility site. Mitigation Measure PS-4 requires the project Applicant to pay the required service and development fees. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.
(3) Parks/Recreation
Mitigation Measure PS-5 requires the project Applicant to comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic.

6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-8
(4) Schools
Mitigation Measure PS-6 requires the project Applicant to pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the CNUSD. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic.
(5) Libraries
Mitigation Measure PS-7 requires payment of service and development fees pursuant to Section 16.23.080 of the CMC and the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic. l. Transportation
Mitigation Measure TR-1 requires the project Applicant to install at a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation at Intersection 3 – Paseo Grande at Ontario Avenue if the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension. Mitigation Measure TR-2 requires the project Applicant to install at a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation at Intersection 4 – Border Avenue and Ontario Avenue. Mitigation Measure TR-3 requires the project Applicant to install at a traffic signal and design for five-phase operation at Intersection 10 – Elysia Street at Foothill Parkway. Mitigation Measure TR-4 requires the project Applicant to install at a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation at Intersection 11 – Trudy Way at Foothill Parkway. Mitigation Measure TR-5 requires the project Applicant to improve Roadway Segment 2 – Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River Road to a 4-lane Secondary Roadway if the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension.

While these improvements would require temporary construction activities at their respective locations, they would be carried out concurrent with project-related construction activities in the immediate area, such that their construction would not result in a substantial increase in the overall construction-related impacts of the proposed project. Furthermore, once constructed, these improvements would serve to reduce operational traffic impacts at the affected locations. Therefore, no measureable secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic. m. Utilities and Service Systems
(1) Water Supply and Water Infrastructure
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires payment of water service connection fees to the Corona Department of Water and Power. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic.
(2) Wastewater
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 requires payment of sewer connection fees to the Corona Department of Public Works. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of the mitigation measure for this environmental topic.

December 2015 6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-9
(3) Solid Waste
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3 requires that contract specifications dictate that the construction contractors utilize the services of City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, while Mitigation Measure UTIL-4 requires on-site separation and recycling of construction related wastes. Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 requires the project Applicant to demonstrate a plan to ensure adherence to the City of Corona Waste Diversion Program, which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic. n. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impacts regarding agriculture and forestry resources are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no secondary impacts would occur due to the implementation of mitigation measures for this environmental topic.

6. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall contain a brief statement indicating reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. An Initial Study was not prepared for the project and therefore all substantive issues with any potential adverse impacts were addressed in this Draft EIR. However, given the development nature of the project site and its location within a highly urbanized area, the City of Corona determined that the project would not result in any potential impacts related to Mineral Resources. The basis for these conclusions is discussed below.

Mineral Resources
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan, prepared by Ginter and Associates, Inc. in April 2014 (Appendix F of this Draft EIR), no active oil or gas wells exist and no mining of the gravels and/or sand has occurred to date. No other mineable resources are known to exist at the site. Aggregate companies have explored on-site conglomerates, but found no evidence of mining development for sand or gravel. Further, implementation of the project would not impede the potential for direct use or future exploration of mineral resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts regarding mineral resources.

6. Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 6-10
This page intentionally blank.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-1

7.0 DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES
A. DOCUMENT PREPARATION

1. Lead Agency – City of Corona
City of Corona
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
Terri Manuel, AICP, Planning Manager
Joanne Coletta, Community Development Director

2. EIR Preparation
PCR Services Corporation
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
David Crook, AICP, Principal Planner (Project Manager)
Jay Ziff, Vice President/Director of Environmental Planning and Documentation Mike Harden, Principal Planner
Heidi Rous, CPP, Vice President/Director of Air Quality, Climate and Acoustics Alan Sako, Senior Air Quality Scientist
Kyle Kim, Ph.D., Senior Acoustic Engineer
Luci Hise-Fisher, Associate Principal
Lorena Christman, Senior Planner
Brian Allee, Senior Planner
Denise Kaneshiro, Graphics Specialist
Terry Keelan, Publications Director

3. Technical Consultants
(1) Traffic Impact Analysis
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
2 Executive Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal
Zawwar Saiyed, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-2
(2) Geotechnical Evaluation
Ginter & Associates, Inc. 27631 Durazno
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Dave Ginter, R.G., C.E.G., President
Vela Ganeshwara, P.E., G.E., Consulting Geotechnical Engineer Mike Mills, R.G., C.E.G., Consulting Engineering Geologist (3) Hydrology and Water Quality
KWC Engineers
1880 Compton Avenue, Suite 100
Corona, CA 92881
Victor Elia, P.E. Mike Taing, P.E.
(4) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Charles Holcombe, Project Manager
Chryss Meier, Air Quality Analyst
(5) Biological Resources
L&L Environmental, Inc.
5455 Morgan Ave
Riverside, CA 92509
Leslie Irish, CEO, Wetland Delineator
Ann Lopez, Delineator & Regulatory Analyst
Julia Fox, Technical Editor
Jeff Sonnentag, Technical Editor
Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC
51-842 Avenida Diaz
La Quinta, CA 92253
Teresa Gonzales
Paul Gonzales
(6) Cultural Resources
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
December 2015 7.0 Document Preparation and References
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-3
Riordan Goodwin, Senior Cultural Resources Manager/Archaeologist Robert E. Reynolds, Senior Paleontologist
Jodi L. Dalton, M.A.
(7) Fuel Modification
BMLA Landscape Architecture
310 North Joy Street
Corona, CA 92879
Baxter Miller, RLA, ASLA President
(8) Agricultural Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Charles Holcombe, Project Manager
(9) Noise
FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Charles Holcombe, Project Manager
Katie Wilson, Air Quality/Noise Analysis Project Manager (10) Hazardous Materials
Hillman Consulting, Inc.
1745 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 110
Orange, CA 92868
Kenneth A. Thornburgh, Ph.D., Project Manager
David Rutherford, Director of Due Diligence
(11) Radio Communications
Wavepoint Research, Inc.

P.O. Box 96
Crane, IN 47522
Eric Wandel, P.E.
(12) Utilities
KWC Engineers
1880 Compton Avenue, Suite 100
Corona, CA 92881
Mike Taing, P.E.

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-4
B. REFERENCES
American Farmland Trust. “Paving Paradise: A New Perspective on California Farmland Conversion.” Website: http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ca/Feature%20Stories/PavingParadise.asp.

November 2007. Accessed April 2013.

Arantine Hills Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by LSA, dated May 9, 2012.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 2012. Available: <http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and %20Research/CEQA/Risk%20Modeling%20Approach%20May%202012.ashx?la=en>.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.

California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, (2005) ES-1.

California Air Resources Board, Summary of Off-Road Emissions Inventory Update, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadappd.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2012.

California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/ documents/rrpfinal.pdf>. Accessed: January 25, 2010.

California Air Resources Board. 1998. Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant.

Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm>. Accessed: January 25, 2010.

California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Leaders. http://www.climateregistry.org/about/ members/climate-action-leaders.html. Accessed April 26, 2011.

California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Leaders. http://www.climateregistry.org/about/members/climate-action-leaders.html. Accessed April 26, 2011.

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.

California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387.

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.

December 2015 7.0 Document Preparation and References
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-5
California Department of Water Resources, “Climate Change Characterization and Analysis in California Water Resources Planning Studies - Final Report,” December 2010 California Department of Water Resources, “Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources,” July 2006
California Department of Water Resources, “Using Future Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California,” May 2009
California Department of Water Resources, Memorandum to All DWR Employees, “Sustainability Targets,” September 20, 2010. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/Sustainability_Policy.pdf.

California Department of Water Resources,Memorandum to All DWR Employees, “Sustainability Workgroup,” April 22, 2009. http://www.water.ca.gov/limatechange/docs/Sustainability_Policy.pdf. 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.

California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1).

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.

California Public Resources Code Section 21083(b)
California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a).

California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(b).

California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d).

California State Water Resources Control Board, 20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan, February 2010. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/20x2020plan.pdf.

CalRecycle Website, Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/, accessed November 2013.

CalRecycle Website,, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/Institution.htm, accessed November 2013).

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-6
Caltrans, California Scenic Highway Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ index.htm Accessed May 6, 2013.

Captain Jerry Rodriguez, Investigative Services Commander, Email correspondence, dated March 3, 2014 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A) and (B)
Chang & Adams Consulting. “Assessing the Economic and Market Trends Affecting Agriculture in the Western Inland Empire”. September 2011.

Cindi Schmitz, Corona Fire Department, Email correspondence, dated March 17, 2014.

Cindi Schmitz, Corona Fire Department, Email correspondence, dated February 27, 2014.

City of Corona Bicycle Master Plan and Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map, prepared by Alta Transportation Consulting and Ryan Snyder Associates, dated May 31, 2001.

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

City of Corona Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Draft EIR, Executive Summary, pages 2-1 and 2-2, August 2008.

City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report, prepared by EIP Associates, adopted March 2004.

City of Corona General Plan, adopted March 17, 2004
City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Website, Recently Completed, Current & Planned Projects, http://www.coronadwp.com/parkmaint/projects.shtml, accessed May 2014.

City of Corona Municipal Code, Chapter 13.16.

City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 17.

City of Corona Municipal Code, Title 18.

City of Corona website; available: http://discovercorona.com/About-Corona.aspx, accessed September 2014.

City of Corona, Climate Action Plan, 2012.

City of Corona, General Plan, Adopted March 2004.

December 2015 7.0 Document Preparation and References
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-7
City of Corona, General Plan, Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Services. EIP Associates, March 2004.

City of Corona, General Plan, Technical Background Report, EIP Associates, March 2004.

City of Corona. www.InnerCircleCorona.com, “Green River Road Widening Project”, posted March 22, 2015.

Available at: http://www.innercirclecorona.com/green-river-road-widening-project/. Accessed July 2015.

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water: Managing an Uncertain Future, California Department of Water Resources, October 2008. http://www.water.ca.gov/ limatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf.

Corona-Norco Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis, December 2012.

County of Riverside. Ordinance No. 348 – Providing For Land Use Planning and Zoning Regulations and Related Functions of the County of Riverside (as amended through Ordinance No. 348.4773).

Effective 07/31/14.
http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/zoning/ordnance/Ord.%20348.4773_clean_version.pdf.

Accessed November 2014.

Department of Water Resources, Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water: Managing an Uncertain Future, California October 2008. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. (FHWA-HI-88-054.) US Department of Transportation, 1988.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Western Riverside County, adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007.

First Carbon Solutions|Michael Brandman Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Skyline Heights Project, City of Corona, California, Table 6, April 2014.

Ginter and Associates, Inc., Infiltration Opportunities, Constraints and Recommendations for Water Quality Treatment Purposes, for Skyline Heights Tentative Tract Map No. 36544, City of Corona,, California, January 2014.

Ginter and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan for Tentative Tract Map No. 36544, April 2014.

Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design, Topic 1001 – General Criteria, Section 1001.4 Definitions, June 26, 2006.

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-8
http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/Public-Works/Foothill-Parkway-WesterlyExtension.aspx, accessed June 16, 2104. http://www.lafco.org/opencms/faq.html, accessed June 16, 2014.

ICF International, Final Corona Regional Medical Center Expansion Project Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Report, prepared by April 2013.

Integrated Water Resources Plan, Report No. 1373, Updated October 12, 2010. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/ irp/IRP2010Report.pdf.

Jones, G. R., J. Jones, B. A. Gray, B. Parker, J. C. Coe, J. B. Burnham, and N. M. Geitner. 1975. A Method for the Quantification of Aesthetic Values for Environmental Decision Making. Nuclear Technology 25(4):
682–713.

Katherine Backus, Management Analyst, Corona Public Library, Letter Correspondence, dated February 27, 2014.

KWC Engineers, Preliminary Drainage Report for Skyline Heights, January 2014.

KWC Engineers, Preliminary Drainage Report, January 21, 2013 KWC Engineers, Preliminary Reclaimed Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project, January 16, 2014.

KWC Engineers, Preliminary Water Report for the Skyline Heights Project, February 10, 2014.

KWC Engineers, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, January 2014.

KWC Engineers. Skyline Heights – Tentative Tract Map No. 36544. 2014.

Martin and Lew (1999) cited in Ginter & Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 35.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board Meeting September 11, 2007 Agenda Item 8-4.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2010. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP_2010.pdf.

Nancy Baker, Facilities Supervisor, Corona-Norco Unified School District, Letter Correspondence, dated March 13, 2014.

December 2015 7.0 Document Preparation and References
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-9
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2000. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust Fact Sheet.

August. Available: <http://oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/dieselfact2.pdf>. Accessed: April 26, 2010.

Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (2004 and 2005) cited in Ginter & Associates, April 25, 2014, page 36.

Public Resources Code Section 21000-21178.

Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. “Agricultural Production Report 2011”. Website:
http://www.rivcoag.org/opencms/publications/. 2012. Accessed April 2013.

San Bernardino, County of. Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. “2009 Crops and Livestock Report”. Website: http://ucanr.org/sites/Farm_Management/files/132158.pdf. 2010. Accessed April 2013. Santa Ana River Trail Master Plan, Corona-Eastvale-Norco Segment State Route 71 to Hidden Valley Wildlife Area, prepared by The Dangermond Group, WRC Consulting, Inc., Michael Brandman Associates, and Kammeyer and Associates, dated June 2011 and the City of Corona Online Services Website, Santa Ana River Trail Documents, http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/Parks--- Community-Services/Park-Development-(1)/Trail-Projects.aspx, accessed May 2014.

SB18 Tribal Consultation, State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines Supplement to General Plan Guidelines, April 15, 2005.

Smardon, R. C., J. F. Palmer, and J. P. Felleman. 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carbepa-sip-submittal. Accessed December 11, 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapter 6 (Determining the Air Quality Significance of a Project), (1993).

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, (1993), 12-3.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Facility Information Detail (FIND), Facility ID 86193, http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/prog/search.aspx. Accessed October 2014.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 21, 2012.

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-10
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, Revised October 21, 2009, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed May 7, 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Report, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study, MATES-III, (2008).

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212, November 1998.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Meteorological Data for Dispersion Model Application, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data.

Accessed October 2014.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Authority – Federal Air Quality Law. “State Implementation Plans”. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/authority. Accessed July 2015.

Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212, November 1998.

Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapter 6 (Determining the Air Quality Significance of a Project).

Southern California Association of Governments website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/ 5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf. Accessed February 2014.

Southern California Association of Governments website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/ 5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf. Accessed May 2014.

State Water Resources Control Board. “Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8).” Updated July 2014.

Steve Lawson, Senior Management Analyst, City of Corona Library and Recreation Services Department, Email correspondence, dated April 29, 2014.

Steve Wilkson, City of Corona Public Works – Waste Management/Recycling, email correspondence, dated February, 28, 2014.

The Regional Urban Water Management Plan, November 2010. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP_2010.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual Resource Management Program(Stock No. 024-001-00116-6.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

December 2015 7.0 Document Preparation and References
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-11
U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616350.html, accessed March 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Agency website (Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate, Regulations and Standards). September 19. Available:
<http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm>.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet

59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open-File Report 2011-1188, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed August 23, 2012.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture (Technical Release No. 65). Washington, DC. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. (Agriculture Handbook Number 701).

Wavepoint Research, Inc., “Analysis of Corona, California Public Safety Radio Sites Coverage Predictions – Skyline Heights Development,” September 30, 2014. Included in Appendix J of this Draft EIR.

Weber (1977) cited in Ginter &Associates, Inc., April 25, 2014, page 22.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2013.

7.0 Document Preparation and References December 2015
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 7-12
This page intentionally blank.

PCR
January 2017

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Skyline Heights Project
City of Corona, California
January 2017
Prepared For:

CITY OF CORONA
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
Contact: Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
Prepared By:

PCR SERVICES CORPORATION
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
Skyline Heights Project
City of Corona, California

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table of Contents
Page

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

1.1 CONTENT AND FORMAT............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR.......................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 POINT OF CONTACT........................................................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-2

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DEIR........2-2

2.2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS..............................................................................................................2-2

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.....................................................................................................................................2-3

3. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR AND RDEIR .................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS................................................................................................................................3-2

4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................................................................4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND RESPONSIBILITIES.......................................................................................4-1

4.3 MMRP PROGRAM CHECKLIST.....................................................................................................................................4-2 List of Tables
Page
Table 2-1 Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project Draft EIR........................................................ 4 Table 2-2 Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project RDEIR .......................................................... 14 City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 i

1. Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the proposed Skyline Heights Project (“proposed project”) is composed of the Draft EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003 and Appendices; the Response to Comments; the Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Staff Reports, and Resolutions.

Specifically, this document portion of the EIR includes the Comments and Responses volume of the Final EIR, EIR modifications or errata, and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The purpose of this document is to respond to all comments received by the City of Corona (“City”) regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR. Additionally, any corrections to the text and figures of the Draft EIR generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this volume of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR text itself has not been modified to reflect these clarifications.

1.1 CONTENT AND FORMAT
Subsequent to this introductory section, Chapter 2 contains copies of each comment letter received on the Draft EIR, along with annotated responses to each comment contained within the letters. Chapter 3 of this document contains corrections and errata to the Draft EIR. Chapter 4 contains the MMRP, which includes additional measures developed as a part of this Final EIR.

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”) of the Draft EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003 for the Skyline Heights Project was filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 4, 2015 and the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft EIR was filed with the Riverside County Clerk on December 4, 2015.

The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for public review for a period of 45 days, from December 4, 2015 to January 19, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the City publicly noticed the availability of the Draft EIR in the Sentinel Weekly, on the city website at www.discovercorona.com, mailed individual public notices to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project boundary and posted a sign on Foothill Parkway in the general proximity of the project site. The City accepted all public comments on the Draft EIR through May 9, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to all Responsible Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in addition to various public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the City Community Development Department at City Hall, at the City Public Library, and on the City’s website.

Based in part on comments received on the Draft EIR, the City decided to recirculate the Biological Resources section of the EIR and supporting revised technical studies. The Recirculated DEIR was circulated for a period of 45 days which began on November 16, 2016 and ended on December 30, 2016, though the City accepted comments submitted on the RDEIR through January 9, 2017.

A total of 83 comment letters, including 66 emails were received during the public comment period.

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

1. Introduction January 2017
Comment letters and emails were received from state agencies, regional agencies, cultural organizations and the general public. In addition, a total of six (6) comment letters were subsequently received on the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) during the 45-day public review period. These included comments from three (3) public agencies, one organization, and two (2) private individuals.

In addition to the written comments, relevant issues raised in oral comments received at two of the City’s regularly scheduled Planning and Housing Commission meetings on April 11 and May 9, 2016 have also been considered. Comments that address environmental issues are thoroughly responded to in Chapter 2.

1.3 POINT OF CONTACT
The Lead Agency for this Project is the City of Corona. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to:

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
Phone: (951) 736-2262

1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following information is summarized from the Chapter 2, Project Description, in the Draft EIR. For additional detail in regard to project characteristics and project-related improvements, along with analyses of the project’s potential environmental impacts, please refer to Draft EIR Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

1.4.1 Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The project site is located in unincorporated Riverside County, approximately three miles south of State Route 71 (SR-71, Chino Valley Freeway) and SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) and approximately four miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15, Temecula Valley Freeway) along the southwestern boundary of the City of Corona.

The 270.9-acre project site is located adjacent to, and southwest of, the proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension.

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

Miscellaneous vacated buildings, used in conjunction with a former horse stable enterprise, are located 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. The project site is generally bounded on the north and east by single-family City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 1-2
January 2017 1. Introduction
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 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) and vacant. This area is accessed by, and to the south of, Skyline Drive.

Existing single-family neighborhoods are also located to the northeast of the project site and Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension. These neighborhoods are generally zoned low density residential (R1-7.2, R1-

8.4, and R1-9.6). Large, undeveloped parcels within the OS zone are interspersed among the residential areas. All of the adjacent developed areas are located within the City of Corona.

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

1.4.2 Proposed Project
The project involves the approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544 for the development of 292 single-family homes. In order to facilitate the development of the residential subdivision, an annexation of the project site and surrounding annexation area is required. As such, the primary facets of the project are the following:
 Annexation of 394.8 acres from unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s SOI to the City of Corona.
 General Plan Amendment to Corona’s General Plan Sphere of Influence Land Use Plan (West Sphere) to amend 394.8 acres from Rural Residential 1 (0.2 – 0.5 dwelling units/acre) to Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units/acre) on 357.14 acres and Open Space on 37.61 acres.  Application to rezone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-

7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square-foot minimum lot size located in the city’s SOI (westerly sphere) to facilitate the annexation of property into the City of Corona.  Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544.

Tentative Tract 36544 includes numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets, and utilities. Of these lots, 45 lots would be developed to the north of Mabey Canyon and 247 lots would be developed to the south of Mabey Canyon. The residential development would occur in three City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 1-3

1. Introduction January 2017
phases. Phase I would consist of 157 homes to be located in the central and south sectors of the site, to the south of Mabey Canyon and along the future Trudy Way alignment. Phase II would consist of 90 homes to be constructed in the central sector of the site, south of Mabey Canyon and west of the Trudy Way alignment.

Phase III would consist of 45 homes to be constructed in the north sector of the project site, north of Mabey Canyon. It is anticipated that the three phases would be completed by 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective 7: Provide strategic improvements within the project to assist the City with Master Plan improvements to existing water and sewer system.

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

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

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

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 1-4
January 2017 1. Introduction
Objective 11: Help meet the high market demand for high quality housing in western Riverside County and to meet the City’s housing needs to support forecasted population growth as discussed in the City’s General Plan (2004).

1.4.4 Required Permits and Discretionary Actions
Approvals required for implementation of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. City of Corona
 City Council approval of project and certification of Environmental Impact Report  General Plan Amendment 13-003 (GPA13-003) to amend Corona’s General Plan Sphere of Influence Land Use Plan (westerly sphere) to amend 394.8 acres from Rural Residential I (0.2 - 0.5 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) on 357.14 acres and Open Space on 37.61 acres.
 Change of zone 13-002 (CZ13 002) to rezone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square-foot minimum lot size) located in the City’s SOI (westerly sphere) to facilitate the annexation of property into the City of Corona.  Annexation 117 to annex 394.8 acres from unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s SOI to the City of Corona.
 Approval of Tentative Tract Map 36544 (TTM 36544) to provide for the subdivision of 270.9 acres into 292 single family residential lots, including numerous lettered lots to be set aside for open space, slope landscaping, streets and utilities in the R-1-7.2 zone being proposed by CZ13-002.  Approval of a Radio Study (for Corona Police Department communications), as well as haul route, demolition, grading, and building permits.

2. Riverside LAFCO
 Review and approval of the annexation of 394.8 acres located within the City of Corona SOI from unincorporated Riverside County to the City of Corona

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

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

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

6. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
 General Construction Stormwater Permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 1-5

1. Introduction January 2017

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

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 1-6

2. Responses to Comments

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A total of 83 comment letters were received on the Skyline Heights Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was initially made available to the public through the State Clearinghouse on December 4, 2015 for a period of 45 days with the public comment period ending on January 20, 2016. The comment period on the Draft EIR was extended by City and the notice of availability was made available to the public on March 16, 2016 through May 2, 2016. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was published in the Sentinel Weekly, published on the City’s website, posted on a sign on Foothill Parkway in general proximity to the project site, and mailed public notices were sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The City accepted all public comments submitted on the Draft EIR through May 9, 2016, the date of the second Planning and Housing Commission meeting on the Skyline Heights project. These include comment letters from five public agencies, three organizations, and 75 private individuals and businesses. In addition, a total of six (6) comment letters were subsequently received on the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) during the 45-day public review period which began on November 16, 2016 and ended on December 30, 2016, though the City accepted comments submitted on the RDEIR through January 9, 2017. These included comments from three (3) public agencies, one organization, and two (2) private individuals.

Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
b) The lead agency shall provide a written response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments make important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), written responses to the comments received regarding the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR, substantive environmental issues associated with the Project, and/or the incorporation of additional environmental information relevant to environmental City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-1

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
analysis, are included in this chapter. In accordance with CEQA Section 15088(a), comments received that do not address one or more of these issues are not responded to further in this chapter.

In addition, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(d), a set of corrections and additions to the EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA that make minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR and RDEIR as a result of City review and comments received during the respective public review periods for these documents. Therefore, this Response to Comments document, along with these corrections and additions, are included as part of the Final EIR for consideration by the City Council prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. These corrections and additions are included in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR. These corrections and additional clarify, amplify, or make minor modifications to the Draft EIR and RDEIR. It should be noted that a number of comments received on the Draft EIR warranted additional analysis regarding impacts to biological resources, and therefore the City prepared an updated Biological Resources section, which was circulated for public review as part of the RDEIR, as noted above. None of the comments, responses, or associated corrections and additions subsequent to the release of the RDEIR constitutes “significant new information” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) that would require recirculation of the EIR because:
 No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure;
 There is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the identified significant impacts to a level of insignificance;
 No feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed has been proposed or identified that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and
 The Draft EIR, inclusive of the RDEIR, is not fundamentally or basically inadequate or conclusory in nature such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DEIR
The public agencies, organizations, and private individuals and businesses that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR through May 9, 2016, and on the RDEIR through January 9, 2017, as well as the environmental and CEQA process issues raised in these comments, are identified in Table 2-1, Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project Draft EIR, and Table 2-2, Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project RDEIR.

2.2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Courtesy statements, introductions, closings, and individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses are included in this section. Brackets delineating the individual comments and an alphanumeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter. Responses to comments were sent to the agencies that provided comments at least 10 days prior to the City Council’s consideration of certification of the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-2
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The bracketed comment letters, and the written responses to the comments in these letters, are provided after Tables 2-1 and 2-2 below.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Table 2-1
Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project Draft EIR

LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

NOISEPOPULATION, HOUSING,EMPLOYMENTPUBLIC SERVICES (INCLUDING PARKS AND RECREATION)b
TRANSPORTATIONcUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESALTERNATIVESOTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSOTHER COMMENTS

EXPLANATION OF OTHER

PUBLIC AGENCIES
1 United States Forest Service
Cleveland National Forest
Trabuco Ranger District
Darrel Vance, District Manager
1147 E 6th Street
Corona, CA 92879-1616
x x x x
2 State of California
Governor’s Office of Pln. and Res.

Scott Morgan, Director
State Clearinghouse and Plan. Unit
1400 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
x x CEQA process
3 State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Inland Deserts Region
Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard
Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
x x
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-4

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

NOISEPOPULATION, HOUSING,EMPLOYMENTPUBLIC SERVICES (INCLUDING PARKS AND RECREATION)b
TRANSPORTATIONcUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESALTERNATIVESOTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSOTHER COMMENTS

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
4 County of Riverside
Transportation and Land
Management Department
Russell Williams, Development
Review Manager
4080 Lemon Street, 8th floor
Riverside, CA 92501
x x x
5 Riverside County
Regional Park and Open-Space
District
Paul Rull, Parks Planner
4600 Crestmore Road
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
x x x

ORGANIZATIONS
6 California Native Plant Society
Riverside-San Bernardino Chapter
4477 Picacho Drive
Riverside, CA 92507
x x x
7 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of
Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
x
8 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of
Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
x
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-5
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

NOISEPOPULATION, HOUSING,EMPLOYMENTPUBLIC SERVICES (INCLUDING PARKS AND RECREATION)b
TRANSPORTATIONcUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESALTERNATIVESOTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSOTHER COMMENTS

EXPLANATION OF OTHER

INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
9 Petition-Moratorium
iPetitions.com x x x X General opposition to project
10 Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x x X
11 Dwight Woodward x x x x x
12 DeAnna Murdock
Signage Solutions
2231 S. Dupont Drive
Anaheim, CA 92806
[email protected]
x x
13 Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
x x x x x
14 Alexis Demeo
[email protected] x x
15 David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x x x X
CEQA process (public
noticing), general
opposition to project
16 Dalia Terriquez
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
17 Jeff Nelson
[email protected] x x x X General opposition to project City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-6

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

NOISEPOPULATION, HOUSING,EMPLOYMENTPUBLIC SERVICES (INCLUDING PARKS AND RECREATION)b
TRANSPORTATIONcUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESALTERNATIVESOTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSOTHER COMMENTS

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
18 Kyle Ericson
3244 Mountain Pass Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x X
19 Rudy Realo
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
20 Georganna Hemingway
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
21 Justin Henderson x x x X General opposition to
project
22 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 23 Justin Henderson
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
24 Branton Lachman
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 25 Stephanie Lomani
[email protected] x x X
General opposition to
project
26 Branton Lachman
[email protected] x x x X General opposition to project 27 Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected] x x x X X
Development rights,
general opposition to
project
28 David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.