CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 167
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The project site is located within a LRA as a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (Cal Fire 2024). The project site is not located in a SRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ. The nearest FHSZ is approximately 2.2 miles southeast of the project site and designated as a VHFHSZ in a SRA. The project site does not abut a VHFHSZ and is not located within the Wildlife Urban Interface (SILVIS 2019).
Additionally, the project site is located within an urbanized, built-out area of the City. Operation of the proposed project would continue to operate as a park and serve nearby residents. The proposed project would follow the appropriate local and regional procedures and policies regarding emergency response and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project site would accommodate emergency and ingress and egress by emergency vehicles as required by the CFD. All access features are to and must satisfy the City of Corona’s fire code. Compliance with the required fire code would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed project would not physically impede the circulation network and roadways surrounding the park. Therefore, no impact would occur. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site and surrounding area are flat and in an urbanized area, and there is no wildland susceptible to wildfire on or near the site. The project site is not located within a VHFHSZ. The surrounding area is currently developed, and therefore lacks the vegetation necessary for the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Construction activities would be subject to review by CFD to ensure adequate fire protection according to the standards of the Uniform Fire Code and the California Code. Therefore, no impact would occur. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area and is served by existing utility infrastructure, including water, wastewater, and power. The proposed project is located within an urbanized area and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, no impact would occur. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area and there is no wildland susceptible to wildfire on or near the site. CAL FIRE does not classify any adjacent areas as a VHFHSZ. Additionally, according to the FEMA flood zone map, the project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2009). The project site and surrounding area are generally flat and would have low potential of post-fire slope instability.
Therefore, no impact would occur. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
5.20.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to wildfire were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 169
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would not result in impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. The geographic range and severity of impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project would be similar to those that would result from implementation of the Approved Project.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact to biological resources, consistent with the Approved Project, and mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would ensure impacts to biological resources are reduced. The proposed project would incorporate all applicable mitigation measures identified in 2020 Certified EIR as discussed in Sections 5.3, Air Quality, 5.4, Biological Resources, 5.5, Cultural Resources, 5.7, Geology and Soils, , and 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, above. The proposed project would not result
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts related to biological, cultural, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. Therefore, preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Changes proposed by the proposed project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new cumulatively considerable impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed cumulatively considerable impacts. The 2020 Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(1), the information used in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:
1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or 2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
The cumulative impacts identified in the 2020 Certified EIR used method No. 2. As discussed previously in this addendum, the proposed project would have no impact, or a less than significant impact/no changes as compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, all impacts are individually limited and would not result in any new cumulatively significant impacts compared to the Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not generate a new cumulatively considerable impact. The preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would not result in an increase of residents compared to the Approved Project. The proposed project would remain a locally serving park for the residents of the City of Corona.
The proposed project would comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws governing general welfare and environmental protection. The implementation of the required mitigation measures specified in the Approved Project, and incorporated into this addendum would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Changes proposed by the proposed project to the Approved Project would not result in any new substantial adverse impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
June 2026 Page 171
6. Findings
As summarized below, and for the reasons described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the City has concluded that the proposed project meets the conditions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and that therefore an Addendum to the 2020 Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed project.
As previously discussed, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to an EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The following restates the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the proposed project.
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the Certified EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect.
The proposed project would occur within the same boundaries of the project site. The proposed project would redevelop the existing park with a new community center, sports facilities, aquatics center and pool, play fields, a skate area, a splash pad, a stage and screen area for community events including market/vender spaces, and ornamental landscaping. The proposed project does not include a change in land use or additional development that was not previously analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. The proposed project includes construction-type activities previously analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. The proposed project does not include substantial changes compared to the Approved Project; implementation of the proposed project would not require revisions to the 2020 Certified EIR. The analysis provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, illustrates that the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR.
2. No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project was undertaken that would require major revisions to the 2020 Certified EIR. Under the Approved Project, the project site is zoned Parks with a land use designation as Open Space Recreational, which allows up park and recreational uses, and therefore, the Approved Project assumed that the project site would serve as a park and recreational use. Implementation of the proposed project would occur within the impact boundaries identified in the 2020 Certified EIR. The proposed project does not include a change in land use or propose
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
6. Findings
any off-site improvements. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the 2020 Certified EIR are required.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration
The proposed project would be implemented within the impact boundary identified for the Approved Project analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. Additionally, the proposed project does not include any land use changes; therefore, the proposed project would not affect the operational conditions analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. The construction activities associated with the proposed project would not include new construction equipment, intensity or methods that would substantially increase significant impacts identified in the 2020 Certified EIR.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
Based on the analysis above, the new components in the proposed project would not result in more severe impacts than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR. All other operational characteristics of the approved project would remain unchanged from those evaluated in the 2020 Certified EIR and subsequent addenda.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible at the time the 2020 Certified EIR was prepared have not been identified as feasible. The proposed project would incorporate all applicable mitigation measures from the 2020 Certified EIR. The mitigation measures not applicable to the proposed project would continue to be valid, feasible, and applicable to the Approved Project as refined by in the subsequent addendum.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
No new mitigation measures or alternatives were identified. The existing applicable mitigation measures from the 2020 Certified EIR would reduce impacts to the feasible extent possible.
June 2026 Page 173
7. List of Preparers
CITY OF CORONA (LEAD AGENCY)
Rachel McLure, CIP Supervisor
PLACEWORKS (CEQA CONSULTANT)
Malia Durand, Principal
Emma Haines, Associate I
Natalie Phan, Planner
Angel Castro, Planner
Nicole Vermilion, Principal – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emily Parks, Associate I – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chris Shields, Senior Associate II, Noise & Vibration
Cary Nakama, Graphics Specialist
CITY PARK REVITLIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
7. List of Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 175
8. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmentalquality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.
CalEPA. 2025a, November 10 (accessed). Solid Waste Disposal Sites Identified by the Water Board with Waste Constituents above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. ———. 2025b, November 10 (accessed). List of Active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the Water Board.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. Generation Rates. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.caleemod.com%2Fdoc uments%2Fuser-guide%2F08_Appendix%2520G_v2022.1.1.3.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-airresources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf. ———. 2022, December. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf. ———. 2024, June 19 (accessed). Area Designations Maps/State and National. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2024, April 1. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2024a, March 22 (accessed). The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/#webmaps ———. 2024b, April 21 (accessed). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
———. 2024c, April 15 (accessed). Fault Activity Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ ———. 2024d, April 27 (accessed). Mineral Lands Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024, April 1 . Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/
CITY PARK REVITLIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
8. References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024, April 8 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2024a, May 3. SGMA Data Viewer. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#boundaries. ———. 2024b, May 13 (accessed). Dam Breach Inundation Map. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 Corona, City of. 2024a, March 22 (accessed). Property Information – Geography Information Services. https://corgis.coronaca.gov/apps/propertyinformation/.
———. 2024b. May 3. City Park Master Plan. https://www.citypark.coronaca.gov/. ———. 2024c. April 15 (accessed). Chapter 15.36 – Grading Regulations. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html ———. 2024d. August 6 (accessed). Chapter 12.22 – Community Urban Forest and Landscape Guidelines. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/corona/latest/corona_ca/0-0-0-42777 ———. 2024e. August 6 (accessed). Urban Forest Management Plan. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublishedd ocument/22458/637890970605900000.
———. 2023. 2020-204- General Plan.
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/25479/638494039032370000 ———. 2022. City of Corona GIS Maps and Data - Sewer Gravity Main. https://giscityofcorona.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cityofcorona::sewer2/explore?layer=11&location=33.874801%2C-117.555952%2C16.00. ———. 2021, June 16. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublishedd ocument/20292/637612402713400000.
———. 2019a, November 22. Standards of Coverage and Headquarters Services Assessment Volume 1 of 2 – Technical Report.
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17206/637102948578300000 ———. 2019b, December. Corona General Plan Technical Update. https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17290/637122799157100000 ———. 2015. Historic Markers. https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/historical-markers.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
8. References
June 2026 Page 177
———. 2014, December 15. City of Corona – Maintenance Services Department – Approved Street Tree List. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublishedd ocument/4561/636342430829570000
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025a. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
———. 2025b. Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action.
Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA). 2008, August 28.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=930%20E%206th%20St%2C%20Corona%2C %20Ca%2092879%20.
International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). 2020. Outdoor Lighting Basics. https://www.darksky.org/ourwork/lighting/lighting-for-citizens/lighting-basics/.
National Park Service (NPS). 2024, March (accessed). National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Peirce, R. (2004). Low frequency noise criteria for concerts. 29. 32-34.
RWDI. (2025). Amphitheater Events – Noise Impact Predictions Corona City Park. April 14th.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024, April 14. Connect SoCal Plan: The 2024– 2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.
———. 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. ———. 2010, September 28. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. ———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.
CITY PARK REVITLIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
8. References
———. 2022, December. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final -2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
———. 2023, March (revised). South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality -significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
Spatial Analysis For Conservation and Sustainability (SILVIS) Lab. 2019, May 17. Wildland Urban Interface. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?layers=a4985d64969743db8feddf01c96c9435 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2024, April 15 (accessed). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.
United States Census. 2023, April 8 (accessed). QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/coronacitycalifornia/PST045222.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2022. WHO Global standard for safe listening venues & events.
June 2026 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2018081039
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR
ADDENDUM
City of Corona
Prepared for:
City of Corona
Contact: Rachel McLure, Senior Project Manager
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
951.736.2400
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Malia Durand, Principal
Emma Haines, Associate I
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
EXHIBIT 11 ~ PLACEWORKS
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
Table of Contents
June 2026 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................ 1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 2
2. MITIGATION MONITORING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS .................. 5
2.1 MITIGATION MEASURES MATRIX .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MATRIX ................................................................................................ 16
3. REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................................. 19
3.1 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................................ 6 Table 2 Conditions of Approval Requirements ........................................................................................... 17
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2018081039. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Corona Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during implementation of the Approved Project.
The mitigation measures presented below are applicable to the Corona City Park Revitalization Project (proposed project).
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
Corona City Park (project site) is located at 930 East 6th Street in the City of Corona, which is in the northwestern corner of Riverside County. The project site is 19.6 acres and consists of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 117-310-001-2 and 117-301-010-2.
Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route (SR) 91 located 0.20 miles to the north and Interstate 15 (I-15) located approximately 0.40 miles to the east. The project site is bounded by Quarry Street, residential homes, and the Corona Community Veterinary Hospital to the north; Rimpau Avenue and the Municipal Plunge to the east; East 6th Street to the south; and Grand Boulevard, residential uses, vehiclemechanic shops, and commercial uses to the west.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Approved Project is described in the City of Corona’s General Plan Technical Update EIR, which was certified on June 3, 2020. The General Plan is the City’s policy and implementation framework that guides the long-term growth and improvement of Corona for the next 20 or more years. Under the Approved Project in the General Plan, the project site is zoned Parks with a land use designation as Open Space Recreational, which allows for park and recreational uses. Therefore, the Approved Project assumed that the project site would serve as a park and recreational use.
The project site encompasses approximately 19.6 acres and is located at the northwest corner of East 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue in the City of Corona. The project site currently operates as Corona City Park and includes open fields, basketball courts, paved play areas, playground structures, parking lots, internal circulation routes, a skate park, pool buildings, and a YMCA facility. The proposed project would redevelop Corona City Park with a new aquatics center in the northeastern portion of the site; a new parking lot in the southeastern portion
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
June 2026 Page 3
of the site; a centrally located community lawn (“Community Canvas”) with a community center building to the east; a new playground structure replacing the existing playground and a new splash pad to the west of the community lawn; replacement restrooms and parking areas on the western portion of the site; and relocated basketball courts with a new pump track surrounding them. An additional parking lot would be located in the northwestern portion of the site. The proposed project would also include new walkways and ornamental landscaping throughout the project site.
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 5
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval
Requirements
2.1 MITIGATION MEASURES MATRIX
Project-specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures.
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 6 PlaceWorks Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
AIR QUALITY AQ-1 The City of Corona shall require the following identified measures to be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions shall include: x Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD’s Rule 403:
- Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. - Apply water every two and a half hours to active soildisturbing activities, or a minimum of three times per day. - Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. x Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer). Interim or stricter emission limits for all off-road construction equipment, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
x Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
x Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
x Limit onsite vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 25 miles per hour.
x Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
City of Corona and Construction Contractor
Technical Assessment: Prior to and During Construction Activities City of Corona Planning Division
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Bat Habitat Assessment and Management Plan. If tree removal and/or building demolition will occur as part of the Project, a focused bat habitat assessment will be conducted by City of Corona Planning Division in consultation with a Qualified Biologist Prior to and During Construction Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 7
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
a bat biologist prior to commencement of tree removal and/or building demolition activities. If the bat biologist determines that only tree roosting habitat is present, then a Bat Management Plan will not be required. If the bat biologist determines that structure habitat is present, then a Bat Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified bat biologist prior to the commencement of Project-related activities (including, but not limited to, structure removal or demolition, tree removal, grading, and vegetation removal) that will include specific avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to roosting bats. The project-specific Bat Management Plan may include any of the following as necessary and appropriate: additional habitat assessments of inaccessible areas that would be directly or indirectly impacted during Project activities, emergence and/or acoustic surveys for bats during the maternity season (April 1 through August 31) to assess the potential for bat maternity roosts in the project site, and pre-construction surveys for roosting bats including acoustic monitoring. The Bat Management Plan shall also include recommendations to minimize impacts to roosting bats including the implementation of no-disturbance buffers, tree- and cliff-swallow nest removal protocols, passive exclusion of bats outside of the maternity and hibernation seasons (if impacts are unavoidable), and/or species-specific replacement alternative roosting habitat. Tree Avoidance and Removal Process. If trees are scheduled to be removed (e.g., relocating) or modified (e.g., trimming) that were determined to be suitable for bat roosting as part of the Bat Habitat Assessment (BIO-1), these activities shall be scheduled during one of the seasonal periods of bat activity, listed below, DQGZKHQHYHQLQJWHPSHUDWXUHVDUHQRWEHORZÛ)DQGUDLQLVnot over 0.5 inch in 24 hours: x September 1 to October 31 (preferred): This is after the maternity season but prior to winter torpor.
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 8 PlaceWorks Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
x February 15 to March 31: After winter torpor but prior to the start of the maternity season.
If trees with suitable bat roosting habitat are scheduled for removal or relocation outside of the maternity season, tree removal during the time periods and weather parameters described above using the two-step method shall be conducted: x Prior to the two-step method, as much as feasible, vegetation and trees within the area that are not suitable for roosting bats will be removed first to provide a disturbance that might reduce the likelihood of bats using the habitat. x Two-step tree removal will occur over two consecutive days under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. On Day 1, small branches and small limbs containing no cavity, crevice or exfoliating bark habitat on habitat trees (or outer fronds in the case of palm trees), as identified by a qualified bat biologist are removed first, using chainsaws only (i.e., no dozers, backhoes). The following day (Day 2), the remainder of the tree is to be felled/removed. (The intention of this method is to disturb the tree with noise and vibration and branch removal on Day 1. This should cause any potentially present day-roosting bats to abandon the roost tree after they emerge for nighttime foraging. Removing the tree quickly the next consecutive day should avoid reoccupation of the tree by bats).
If tree removal/modification must occur during the maternity season (April 1 to August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey(s) of the tree(s) within 48 hours of scheduled work. If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost will remain undisturbed until after the maternity season or until a qualified biological monitor has determined the roost is no longer active.
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 9
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
BIO-2 If sensitive biological resources are identified within or adjacent to the proposed development project area, the construction limits shall be clearly flagged to ensure impacts to sensitive biological resources are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. Prior to implementing construction activities, a qualified biologist shall verify that the flagging clearly delineates the construction limits and sensitive resources to be avoided.
Qualified Biologist in coordination with the Construction Contractor and the City of Corona Planning Division Prior to Construction Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
BIO-3 If sensitive biological resources are known to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area, a projectspecific contractor training program shall be developed and implemented to educate project contractors on the sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed development project area and measures being implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species. A qualified biologist shall develop and implement the contractor training program.
Qualified Biologist in coordination with the Construction Contractor and the City of Corona Planning Division Prior to Construction Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
BIO-4 If sensitive biological resources are present within or adjacent to the proposed development project area and impacts may occur from implementation of construction activities, a qualified biological monitor may be required during a portion or all of the construction activities to ensure impacts to the sensitive biological resources are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. The specific biological monitoring requirements shall be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. The qualified biological monitor shall be approved by the City on a project-byproject basis based on applicable experience with the sensitive biological resources that may be impacted.
Qualified Biologist in coordination with the Construction Contractor and the City of Corona Planning Division During Construction Activities City of Corona Planning
Division
BIO-7 The City of Corona shall require applicants for future development projects to contract with a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be impacted by active construction during general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction.
Qualified Biologist in coordination with the Construction Contactor and the City of Corona Planning Division Prior to and During Construction Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 10 PlaceWorks Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
If no active avian nests are identified within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer of the proposed development project area, no further mitigation is necessary. If active nests of avian species covered by the Fish and Game Code are detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer of the proposed development project area, construction shall be halted until the young have fledged, until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is inactive, or until appropriate mitigation measures that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the regulatory agencies. Based on the discretion of the qualified biologist, the 300-foot buffer may be expanded as appropriate to the species.
CULTURAL RESOURCESCUL-5 If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find: a. If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no City and NEPA lead agency (if applicable) notifications are required. b. If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the City and NEPA lead agency (if applicable). The City, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist and other consulting parties as the City deems appropriate, shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment Qualified Archaeologist, in coordination with the City of Corona Planning Division Prior to and During GroundDisturbing Activities City of Corona Planning Division I I
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 11
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined by CEQA or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction. c. If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the archaeologist shall notify the Riverside County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the City shall follow the process outlined under Mitigation Measure TCR-2.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 High and Low-to-High Sensitivity. In areas designated as having “high” or “low-to-high” sensitivity for paleontological resources, the project applicant shall be required to submit a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). The PRMMP shall be prepared by a Qualified Paleontologist meeting the standards of Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The plan shall address specifics of monitoring and mitigation based on the project area and project’s construction plan, and shall take into account updated geologic mapping, geotechnical data, updated paleontological records searches, and changes to the regulatory framework at the time of analysis. The PRMMP shall be submitted to the City of Corona’s Community Development Department prior to approval of a grading permit.
Qualified Paleontologist in coordination with the City of Corona Planning Division Prior to Approval of a Grading Permit
City of Corona Planning Division
GEO-3 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity shall require monitoring if construction Qualified Paleontologist in coordination with the Construction Contractor Prior to and During GroundDisturbing Activities City of Corona Planning Division
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 12 PlaceWorks Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
activity exceeds the depth of the low-sensitivity surficial sediments. The underlying sediments may have high sensitivity; therefore, work in those units shall require paleontological monitoring, as designated by the Qualified Paleontologist in the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP). and the City of Corona Planning Division
GEO-6 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a Qualified Paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA). The repository shall be identified, and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed, prior to collection of the fossils.
Qualified Paleontologist in coordination with the Construction Contractor and the City of Corona Planning Division During Ground Disturbing Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
NOISE N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City Corona Public Works Department shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. x During the active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
Construction Contractor and the City of Corona Public Works Department Prior to Approval of Demolition/Grading/Building Permits and During Construction Activities City of Corona Public Works Department
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 13
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
x Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulic- or electric-powered wherever feasible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. x Stationary equipment such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from noisesensitive uses. x Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from noisesensitive receptors. x Construction traffic shall be limited—to the extent feasible— to approved haul routes established by the City.
x Prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the contact information of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. x Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. x During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall be responsible for adjusting alarms based on the background
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 14 PlaceWorks Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
noise level, or to utilize human spotters when feasible and in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. x When construction noise is predicted to exceed established noise standards and when the anticipated construction duration is two years or more, contractors shall erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities. A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (”Tribe”). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, potholing, auguring, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. B. A copy of the monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, places of significance, etc. as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, (collectively, tribal cultural City of Corona Planning Division, Construction Contractor in coordination with Native American Tribal Monitor 30-days Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit and During Ground Disturbing Activities City of Corona Planning Division
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 15
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American human remains and associated grave goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete.
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources or Human Remains.A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. B. Human remains and associated grave goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(2). C. Any discovery of human remains/associated grave goods shall be kept confidential as required by state law. D. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCRs are removed in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. E. In the event of a discovery of Native American human remains, the project applicant shall comply with PRC 5097.98.
City of Corona Planning Division and the applicable Native American Tribe During Ground Disturbing Activities
City of Corona Planning Division
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements
2.2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MATRIX
Project-specific conditions of approval have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 2, Conditions of Approval Requirements. The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific conditions of approval, schedule, and responsible monitor. The conditions of approval matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all conditions of approval.
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
June 2026 Page 17
Table 2 Conditions of Approval Requirements
Condition of Approval
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
NOISE COA-N-1 The City shall implement measures to reduce amplified music or sound associated with live music concert and movie night events. The following measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the proposed project: x Restrict amphitheater sound system output to an average of 90 dBA Leq, averaged over a 15-minute period, at a position located 100 feet from the central lawn or portable stage area and portable movie screen of the park. x Restrict instantaneous maximum sound levels allowed for live music concerts to 95 dBA Lmax at a position located 100 feet from the central lawn or portable stage area and portable movie screen of the park. x Noise monitoring will be conducted and monitored and
reviewed throughout the event to provide sound technicians with noise data for appropriate sound system mixing board adjustments to ensure compliance with regulations. x Noise monitoring will be conducted with a handheld sound level meter. The meter shall satisfy the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for Type I or II instrumentation.
City of Corona Community Services Department
During Live Music Concerts and Movie Night Events at the Park City of Corona Community Services Department
CITY PARK REVITALIZTION PROJEC T EIR ADDENDUM MITIGATION MONI TORING AND REPO RTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Conditions of Approval Requirements Page 18 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 19
3. Report Preparation
3.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Corona (Lead Agency)
Rachel McLure, Senior Project Manager
PlaceWorks (CEQA Consultant)
Malia Durand, Principal
Emma Haines, Associate I
CORONA GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE MITI GATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Report Preparation
This page intentionally left blank.
P.O. Box 2904 Corona, California 92878 951.898.2044 www.corona-history.org August 4, 201
March 29, 2024
Ms. Evelyn Hildebrand
Associate Archaeologist
ECORP Consulting, Inc
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
RE: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Corona City Park Project, Riverside County, California
Dear Ms Hildebrand:
Unfortunately, most of the cultural resources in this area have been removed more than 20 years ago. i.e. The Plunge (1925-1945), the Armory Building (1950s-2021?, the big artillary piece (1918-1940s), the lighted softball diamond (1920s-1990?), the cactus garden, the wading pools, the long Spanish tile roofed picnic table pavilions, etc.
As far as we have been able to determine only one historic drinking fountain from 1919 (currently not connected to a water source), Founders Monument (Rock), (California Historical Landmark No. 738, placed 6/6/1960 and the historic palms, pines, cedars, fir, Moreton Bay Fig and other trees remain. The remaining meandering asphalt roadway with parking has been an integral part of the park for many decades and conveys its authenticity as an old park. Concrete walkways have been suggested but are not usually found or desired in old parks because the tree root system is so developed that within a short period of time the sidewalks will become cracked and broken and possibly become trip hazards. We can provide photographs of historic elements from when they were a part of the City Park, if that is desired.
There is an historic site commemorative marker monument to the Municipal Plunge (1925-1945) under the canopy of the gigantic historic Moreton Bay Fig tree near the southwestern corner of the Park. Part of the compressor from the Sunkist Growers plant that powered the whistle heard at least three times daily for more than 60 years is located on the ground near the park sign facing East Sixth Street. We would be happy to share other comments or reactions to existing facilities and proposed changes.
Sincerely,
FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Richard Winn
Richard Winn, Acting Secretary
Attachment: Aerial photograph of the Park
P.O. Box 2904 Corona, California 92878 951.898.2044 www.corona Page 2284 of 2528 -history.org 1 Evelyn Hildebrand
From: Rich Winn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 2:16 AM
To: Evelyn Hildebrand
Subject: Corona City park Response letter - 2
Ms. Hildebrand:
As far as historic photographs, we are not sure how much use they might be for this new project. but I will assemble whatever I have access to and forward them to you via another message. The Corona Public Library should have a more comprehensive collection.
Somewhere "out there" are a few that represent the park in its best current condition.
The current design as presented depicts just the minimum tokens to its historic roots:- Founders Rock, the Sunkist air compressor mechanism and the 1919 fountain and the many historic trees, and these must be retained.
We would prefer retaining the historic light poles and lamps that are in the park and adding to them and not placing the modern bulb lights shown in the latest presentation. Decorating a sow's ear with bangles and baubles does not a silk purse make.
I understand that one idea was trying to show a gabled roof as homage to a old packing house. A valiant effort but the giant windows betray that thought. Take a look at the Corona Marine building at Third Street and West Grand if you want authenticity -- that includes the building materials used to construct the building and the saw-tooth roof line that provides plenty of illumination.
We would like to reiterate that a new park built to modern standards is not what is needed or desired. The meandering asphalt roadway with necessary but largely infrequent post and plank fencing and at-grade parking has been an integral part of the park and should be preserved to convey its ambiance as an old park. Concrete walkways have been suggested but are not usually found or desired when updating old parks because the tree root system is so developed that within a short period of time the sidewalks will become cracked and broken and possibly become trip hazards. At grade walkways of decomposed granite are more likely to reduce the trip and fall exposure from cracked and broken concrete and would facilitate less costly maintenance and repair expenses.
Our thoughts are that before turning a shovel of soil more effort should be made to assess just who is the "target audience" for whom this new and improved park is being refurbished.
2 Surveys of our members tend to indicate that it is not going to draw residents from South Corona, nor is it likely to draw residents from Auburndale or Sierra Del Oro other than for special events, Cinco de Mayo celebrations and such, as it currently does.
Regards,
For the Board of Directors,
Richard Winn
Acting Secretary
Corona Historic Preservation Society
Date: June 29, 2026
Honorable Chair and Members of the City of Corona Historic Preservation Board 400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
Re: City Park Revitalization Project — MARD2026-0002 / Historic District HD-005 Subject: Request to Table Action Pending Revision of the CEQA Cultural Resources Analysis and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Honorable Chair and Members of the Board:
The Corona Historic Preservation Society supports the revitalization of City Park. The park deserves reinvestment, preservation of its historic features, restoration of its civic role, and a future worthy of its place in Corona’s history.
However, the project should not move forward on the basis of a Cultural Resources Report and CEQA Addendum that substantially understate and, in several important respects, omit the historical and cultural significance of City Park.
The current Cultural Resources analysis evaluates City Park too narrowly. It treats the park’s significance as though it can be measured primarily by the survival or loss of individual physical features. That approach overlooks the broader, more important history of the place. City Park was deliberately planned, publicly funded, professionally designed, planted as a civic landscape, and used for more than a century as a central venue for public gatherings, recreation, organized baseball, women’s athletics, civic events, political events, Cinco de Mayo celebrations, and community life.
For many Coronans, City Park was not simply “a park.” It was their park—a place where civic identity, recreation, community pride, cultural expression, and social exclusion all intersected. That is especially true for Corona’s Mexican American community, whose history is tied to City Park through organized baseball, Las Debs de Corona, Cinco de Mayo celebrations, Chicano cultural continuity, and the documented segregation and later desegregation of the Municipal Plunge.
The most serious defect in the Cultural Resources Report is its failure to meaningfully evaluate the Mexican American cultural history. This is not a minor omission. It is a failure to evaluate a central part of Corona’s historical record. José M. Alamillo’s documentation in Making Lemonade from Lemons that Mexican American residents in Corona transformed leisure spaces like City Park, including baseball games, parades, festivals, and churches, into spaces where residents built solidarity, expressed identity, voiced grievances, and laid the groundwork for later civil rights activity. Alamillo’s Corona-specific work on Cinco de Mayo festivals further documents that these celebrations were not merely festive events, but important expressions of ethnic identity, cultural politics, and community organization in the face of discrimination.
The primary-source record now submitted to the city ties that history directly to City Park. Newspaper clippings document Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park as early as 1936, including music and entertainment, as well as a baseball game. Later records document Corona Athletics baseball, Las Debs de Corona women’s softball at City Park, and a 1976 Cinco de Mayo celebration that proceeded to City Park and featured a game between the old Corona Athletics and young Chicano all-stars from Corona. Taken together, these records show that City Park served as a place of Mexican American and Chicano cultural continuity across generations.
For the Cultural Resources Report to move City Park toward a conclusion of diminished or less-than-significant historic value without evaluating that record is deeply flawed. It effectively tells a large part of Corona’s community, especially Mexican American families who used, organized around, celebrated in, and identified with City Park, that their history does not count because the analysis focused too narrowly on the remaining physical fabric. That is not an adequate cultural resources analysis, and it is not a sound basis for CEQA approval.
CEQA requires a good-faith, evidence-based evaluation of the whole record. Public Resources Code § 21084.1 provides that locally listed historical resources are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that CEQA documents must provide meaningful disclosure and cannot ignore substantial evidence relevant to environmental impacts or historical-resource significance. In County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal sustained objections to an EIR that failed to comply with CEQA’s
informational requirements. In Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners, the court required further CEQA analysis where critical issues, including cumulative impacts, were not adequately addressed. In League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland, the court reversed approval where a historical resource was improperly dismissed without adequate CEQA review.
The same principle applies here. The city cannot rely on an incomplete Cultural Resources Report to downplay a locally designated historic district while omitting substantial evidence of historic landscape significance, Mexican American cultural history, civil-rights history, organized baseball, women’s recreation, Cinco de Mayo celebrations, historic lighting, civic assembly features, engineered recreation, and surviving historic plantings.
For these reasons, the Board should table this item and direct staff to revise the Cultural Resources Report, CEQA Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program so that City Park’s full history, including the Mexican American community history that means so much to Corona, is honestly and completely evaluated before project approval.
I. CEQA Requires Full and Accurate Evaluation Before Project Approval CEQA Guidelines § 15164 allows an addendum only when changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring a subsequent EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 have occurred. An addendum must be supported by substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 requires additional review where substantial changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance show new significant effects, substantially more severe effects, or feasible mitigation or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant effects.
The 2018 Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego decision confirms that CEQA Guidelines § 15164 authorizes the addendum process, but it does not allow an agency to rely on an incomplete record or ignore substantial new information. That case involved an EIR addendum in a major historic park context, underscoring that addenda in historic-resource settings must still be grounded in the CEQA record and applicable legal standards.
Here, substantial evidence now before the city has not been adequately incorporated into the Cultural Resources Report or MMRP. That evidence includes
direct documentation of Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park, organized baseball, women’s recreation, Mexican American cultural history, evidence of historic plantings and trees, historic lighting, civic assembly features, and Plunge segregation/desegregation history. Approval should not proceed until that evidence is evaluated.
II. City Park Must Be Evaluated as a Historic Cultural Landscape City Park is being processed as Historic District HD-005. A locally designated historic district cannot be treated as non-significant without a complete evaluation of the evidence. Public Resources Code § 21084.1 creates a presumption of historical or cultural significance for locally listed resources unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise.
The Cultural Resources Report appears to rely heavily on the loss or alteration of some physical features to conclude that City Park no longer retains sufficient integrity. That approach is too narrow. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards apply not only to buildings, but also to related landscape features, the site, environment, and district context. The National Park Service summary of the Rehabilitation Standards emphasizes preserving a property’s historic materials, features, and character.
City Park should therefore be evaluated as a historic cultural landscape, not merely as a checklist of remaining structures or objects. Its significance derives not only from individual features, but from its historic location, spatial continuity, landscape design, long-term public use, and documented association with community history.
III. City Park Was a Deliberately Planned Civic Landscape The historical summary submitted with these comments states that City Park was established during a major period of Corona civic development, alongside City Hall, street paving, sidewalks, and road-race planning. The same summary states that multiple potential park sites were considered before the city purchased approximately 18.95 acres east of Grand Boulevard in 1912.
The historical summary further states that P.M. Rasmussen of Rubidoux Nurseries was hired in 1912 and that the park design included baseball grounds, tennis courts, sidewalks, driveways, and planting more than 1,000 trees, flowers, and shrubs.
The 1921 newspaper clipping titled “Corona City Park: A Reflection of Good Planting” further supports this design-history argument. That clipping documents a deliberate planting strategy that uses both slow-growing trees for long-term structure and fastgrowing trees for immediate effect. See Exhibit L-1.
This evidence supports the conclusion that the current Cultural Resources analysis does not fully address: City Park was the product of deliberate civic planning and landscape design. Because Mr. Rasmussen doesn’t have a long list of impressive designs, he doesn’t acknowledge that his basic design lasted for over 110 years.
IV. Historic Plantings and Landscape Features Require Formal Evaluation Under CEQA The historical record indicates that City Park’s original landscape included extensive planned plantings, including plant material sourced from agricultural experimentstation–related efforts. The submitted historical summary states that many plant specimens were introduced to the site through such an effort, reflecting early twentieth-century practices of civic beautification, plant introduction, and coordinated landscape design.
This context matters because it demonstrates that City Park was not developed as incidental open space, but as a designed landscape with intentional planting and long-term structure. Agricultural experiment stations were part of a broader national research system. The United States Experiment Station Records and Reports documented agricultural experiment station work across the United States and U.S. territories. The University of California Citrus Experiment Station was established in Riverside in 1907 and contributed to California citrus and regional agricultural science.
The historical record identifies surviving mature trees, such as the Moreton Bay fig and Bunya tree, as notable features of the early park landscape. Comparable trees are recognized as historically significant elsewhere. Santa Barbara’s Moreton Bay Fig Tree was officially designated as a historic landmark in 1970 and placed on the California Register of Big Trees. Southern California landmark summaries identify many notable Moreton Bay figs as late nineteenth-century plantings. Santa Barbara Beautiful describes Bunya Bunya trees as trees planted locally starting in the late 1800s on ranch houses, estates, larger residential homes, and public parks.
The submitted 1968 newspaper clipping independently confirms that the Bunya tree at City Park was recognized at the time as a notable, identifiable park feature. See Exhibit I-1.
Despite this record, the Cultural Resources analysis does not evaluate the park’s planting program or surviving mature trees as potential historic landscape features.
This omission is significant because landscapes and vegetation may contribute to historical significance where they reflect historical design, use, or association.
Project materials indicate that several mature trees are proposed to be “preserved” or “relocated.” However, the environmental analysis does not evaluate whether those trees are contributing elements of a historic landscape; does not assess the impacts of relocation on mature canopy trees; and does not address constructionrelated effects on trees proposed to remain, including root-zone disturbance, soil compaction, and long-term viability.
A general statement that trees will be “saved” or “relocated” is not sufficient. CEQA requires the identification of the resource, the evaluation of impacts, and the implementation of enforceable mitigation measures where appropriate. Public Resources Code § 21081.6 requires mitigation monitoring programs to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The CEQA analysis should include a comprehensive historic landscape and tree inventory before approval. That inventory should identify, map, photograph, and evaluate mature trees and potential early plantings, including the Moreton Bay fig, the Bunya tree, and other mature canopy trees that may contribute to the historic landscape and potential of these trees to be listed as Heritage Trees under the city’s Urban Tree Management Plan
V. Historic Lighting and Civic Assembly Features Require Evaluation The submitted 1924 clipping titled “Give Posts for City Park Light” states that three new ornamental light posts of the same style and texture as those used in the new street lighting system were offered to the city for use in City Park. The article states that the posts could be used to light a bandstand in the park or the municipal plunge.
See Exhibit G-1.
That clipping does not prove that every existing light fixture in the park today is one of those 1924 posts. But it does prove that ornamental lighting was historically part of City Park’s designed civic landscape. The current MMRP does not identify historic
lighting as a cultural feature, require evaluation before removal or alteration, or include treatment measures for preservation, relocation, or documentation.
The appropriate CEQA response is to evaluate the historic lighting rather than assume it is non-historic. The MMRP should require a qualified architectural historian to evaluate existing park lighting before removal, relocation, or alteration.
If fixtures are found to be historic or contributing, the MMRP should require preservation in place where feasible, or relocation and reuse within City Park with documentation.
The same issue applies to civic assembly features. The 1924 lighting article refers to a bandstand, and the Governor Knight clipping states that Governor Knight would speak from the band shell at City Park. See Exhibits G-1 and J-2. The CHPS acknowledges that the current band shell was not the original feature; the Cultural Resources Report should have evaluated the band shell, its location, its setting, and its role as a successor public assembly space within the park before it was prematurely demolished.
The issue is not only architecture. The band shell was tied to the park’s civic assembly, public events, and political functions.
VI. City Park Was a Regional Civic, Political, and Recreational Venue The submitted Road Race clipping states that Corona’s 1954 Road Race celebration and parade drew thousands, including civic floats and bands, and included public entertainment programming. See Exhibit J-1. The Governor Knight clipping states that Governor Knight would speak from the band shell at City Park in 1955, with unreserved seats and standing areas open to the public at no charge. See Exhibit J-2.
These exhibits show that City Park functioned as more than a neighborhood park. It served as a civic and public assembly space. That pattern of use should be evaluated under California Register Criterion 1/CRHR Criterion A, which recognizes resources associated with events that made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history and cultural heritage. The California Office of Historic Preservation describes the California Register criteria to include association with events that made a significant contribution to broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage.
City Park also operated as a multi-use recreation complex. The submitted quartermidget racing clippings state that organized quarter-midget races occurred at City Park, including a track at Rimpau and Quarry behind the National Guard Armory, and
that the Corona group would race on the second and fourth Sundays at the QMR track in City Park. See Exhibits K-1 and K-2.
These uses reinforce that City Park’s significance is not limited to passive open space or early plantings. The park has functioned throughout the decades as a programmed civic and recreational landscape.
VII. Baseball at City Park Is Directly Documented and Culturally Significant The attached newspaper clippings show that organized baseball was played at City Park over multiple decades. The submitted clippings identify the Corona Athletics, City Park games, box scores, league standings, players, managers, and pitchers. See Exhibits A-1 through A-6.
Published sources independently support the importance of Mexican American baseball in the Inland Empire. Mexican American Baseball in the Inland Empire documents Mexican American baseball in Pomona, Ontario, Cucamonga, Chino, Claremont, San Bernardino, Colton, Riverside, Corona, Beaumont, and the Coachella Valley, and identifies teams such as the Corona Athletics and Las Debs de Corona.
The Smithsonian record for the same work states that baseball diamonds in the Inland Empire provided opportunities for ethnic identity and political selfdetermination for Mexican Americans during an era of segregation and identifies the Corona Athletics and Las Debs de Corona.
The CEQA analysis should incorporate this evidence rather than treating baseball as a generic recreational use.
The later removal or alteration of the baseball field does not erase City Park’s historical association with organized baseball or Mexican American community life.
Under the California Register framework, historical significance may be based on association with important events, activities, or historical patterns. Integrity is relevant, but loss of a specific physical feature does not automatically eliminate significance where the site’s historical role is well documented.
Here, the record demonstrates that City Park was a long-standing site of organized baseball associated with Corona Athletics and other community teams. The record also shows that baseball at City Park was connected to Mexican American community life, Las Debs de Corona, and later Cinco de Mayo/Chicano cultural continuity. The removal of the baseball field changed the park’s physical
configuration, but it did not erase its documented role as a center of organized recreation and community identity.
VIII. Las Debs de Corona and Women’s Recreation Strengthen the Cultural Significance
The attached 1949 “La Sección Mexicana de Corona” clipping documents a formal Mexican community section and refers to Las Debs de Corona, including a named participant, Nelda Cluse. See Exhibit B-1.
Additional submitted women’s softball clippings document Corona Debs practice at City Park, a girls’ game at City Park, and a Corona Debs win with pitchers Gloria Zilioli and Emma Gallagher identified. See Exhibits H-1 through H-3.
The Cultural Resources Report should evaluate this history because it demonstrates that organized recreation at City Park included women and girls, not only men’s baseball. Published sources identify Las Debs de Corona as part of Inland Empire Mexican American baseball history.
IX. Cinco de Mayo Evidence Directly Connects City Park to Mexican American Cultural Life
The record now includes direct primary-source evidence that City Park was used for Cinco de Mayo programming as early as 1936.
The submitted April 29, 1936 “Jubilee Program” lists, for Tuesday, May 5, a “Cinco de Mayo — Mexican Fiesta.” The program includes a salute to flags at 6:00 a.m., a parade at 10:00 a.m., a “music and entertainment program at city park, 12 noon to 2:30,” a baseball game at 2:30 p.m., children’s events at 4:00 p.m., and a free dance that evening. See Exhibit C-0.
This evidence is significant because it directly places the 1936 Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park. This is not an inferred association; the program expressly identifies City Park as the location for the music and entertainment portion of the Mexican Fiesta. One of the earliest celebrations in Riverside County outside of Casa Blanca was in 1907.
The 1936 program also links City Park, Cinco de Mayo, public entertainment, and baseball in the same event schedule. That connection is important because other evidence in the record shows that baseball was a major organized activity at City Park and that Mexican American baseball in Corona and the Inland Empire carried
cultural meaning beyond recreation. Mexican American Baseball in the Inland Empire identifies the Corona Athletics and Las Debs de Corona as significant teams in the history of Inland Empire Mexican American baseball.
The 1936 evidence also aligns directly with Alamillo’s scholarship on Corona’s Cinco de Mayo festivals. Alamillo’s article, “More Than a Fiesta: Ethnic Identity, Cultural Politics and Cinco de Mayo Festivals in Corona, California, 1930–1950,” specifically addresses Corona’s Cinco de Mayo celebrations during the same general period.
Available summaries describe the article as examining how Mexican American organizers used Cinco de Mayo festivals in Corona to promote ethnic solidarity and defend the ethnic Mexican community against racist and nativist attacks.
The latter record confirms this connection continued across generations. The submitted April 28, 1976, clipping states that the Cinco de Mayo parade would proceed to Corona City Park, where a fiesta with food, music, and dancing would be held. The same clipping states that a baseball game would pit “the old Corona Athletics team” against “an all-star team of young Chicano players from Corona.” See Exhibit C-1.
That later clipping is powerful evidence of continuity. It shows that City Park remained a public venue where Mexican American and Chicano identity, recreation, community memory, and intergenerational connection were publicly expressed. The reference to the old Corona Athletics and young Chicano players ties City Park’s baseball tradition to the Chicano-era celebration of community history.
The Cultural Resources Report should have evaluated this record. A report that treats City Park as historically diminished while failing to address documented Cinco de Mayo programming at the park, Corona Athletics baseball, Las Debs de Corona, and Chicano cultural continuity does not adequately evaluate the park’s cultural significance.
X. The Municipal Plunge Is Central to City Park’s Segregation and Civil Rights History The submitted Plunge History states that the City Plunge was constructed in 1925 as a major City Park feature and a needed additional attraction. The same document states that, for much of its early history, Mexican American residents were restricted to using the pool on Mondays. The document further states that a sign reportedly read, “Mexican American children may only swim in the pool on Monday.”
The Plunge History states that the Jefferson Dissertation, citing Alamillo, confirms that when the municipal pool opened in 1925, Mexicans, Italians, and other “foreigners” could swim only on Mondays, the day before pool water was changed.
The Plunge History also states that the City installed a filtration and heating system in 1929 and that chemical testing confirmed water purification by 1930, while the Monday restriction reportedly continued afterward.
The Plunge History describes desegregation as a multi-stage process involving sign removal, race-neutral scheduling, integrated military access, and formal civilian integration. It also identifies an account in which Plunge Manager Nettie Whitcomb reportedly stated that if Mexican American citizens could fight for their country, they could swim in the pool any day of the week with fellow Coronans.
The Plunge History further states that Camp Haan and the U.S. Naval Hospital at Norco brought thousands of military personnel to the Corona area. It summarizes a 1943 operating report documenting paid civilian swimmers, free use and services for military personnel, daily lessons, use of the washing machine by servicemen, and City Council recognition of Mrs. Whitcomb.
This evidence makes a 1913–1930 period of significance too narrow. The park’s significance extends into the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and beyond, including baseball, Plunge segregation/desegregation, World War II home-front use, women’s recreation, quarter-midget racing, civic events, and Cinco de Mayo/Chicano cultural continuity. The CHPS’s marker for this important part of Corona History is not noted for relocation in Exhibit 4 of the Historic Objects.
XI. The Cultural Resources Analysis Contains Fundamental CEQA Defects The deficiencies in the Cultural Resources Report are not isolated omissions. They reflect broader analytical errors that undermine the CEQA document's overall reliability.
A. Failure to Evaluate Significance Under Criterion 1 / Historical Association CEQA and the California Register framework recognize that a resource may be historically significant if it is associated with events or patterns of activity that have made a significant contribution to local or regional history. The record before the City includes substantial evidence that City Park was associated with organized
baseball, Mexican American community life, Cinco de Mayo celebrations, and later Chicano-era events.
These associations are directly relevant to a Criterion 1 / historical-association evaluation. The Cultural Resources Report does not meaningfully analyze them. That omission prevents decision-makers from understanding the full significance of the resource.
B. Improper Reliance on Altered Physical Conditions to Discount Significance The Cultural Resources analysis appears to rely, in part, on the removal or alteration of physical features to support the conclusion that City Park no longer retains sufficient integrity. That approach is incomplete. Integrity must be evaluated in relation to the reasons the resource is significant. Where significance is based on association with events, cultural patterns, and community use, the loss of a specific physical feature does not automatically eliminate significance.
C. Inadequate Informational Analysis Under CEQA
An EIR or Addendum is intended to function as an informational document for decision-makers and the public. Courts have consistently required meaningful disclosure and analysis. In County of Inyo, the court sustained objections to an EIR that failed to comply with CEQA’s informational requirements. In Berkeley Keep Jets, the court required further CEQA analysis where the environmental document did not adequately analyze critical issues.
The current Cultural Resources Report omits or does not adequately evaluate key historical evidence, including early Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park, Corona Athletics baseball, Las Debs de Corona and women’s recreation, later Chicano-era cultural events, broader Mexican American cultural use of public space in Corona, and potential contributing historic landscape features.
D. Failure to Consider Cumulative Loss of Community-Associated Cultural Landscapes CEQA Guidelines § 15355 defines cumulative impacts as impacts from several projects that, individually minor, can be significant in combination over time. CEQA Guidelines § 15130 requires discussion of cumulative impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
The Cultural Resources Report does not evaluate whether additional alteration of City Park would contribute to the cumulative loss of spaces associated with Mexican
American recreation, civic life, and cultural history. That omission is significant because CEQA’s cumulative impact framework is intended to address incremental losses that may become collectively meaningful over time.
XII. The MMRP Must Be Revised
The MMRP excerpt provided in the record includes CUL-5, which addresses what happens if subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction. It also includes TCR-1, which requires a Native American monitor from, or approved by, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation before ground-disturbing activity, and TCR-2, which addresses the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources or human remains.
Those measures are important, but the MMRP is largely reactive. It does not address known or potential historic landscape features such as mature trees, historic lighting, civic assembly features, or other character-defining elements.
The MMRP should therefore be revised to include enforceable measures for:
1. historic lighting evaluation before alteration;
2. civic assembly feature evaluation;
3. historic tree and landscape inventory, including mature trees such as the Moreton Bay fig and Bunya tree;
4. Protection measures for mature trees and contributing landscape features, including inclusion as Heritage Trees under the Urban Forest Management Plan
5. archaeological and tribal monitoring during ground-disturbing activities;
6. documentation and treatment of contributing historic landscape features; and
7. a historic context statement addressing Mexican American civil rights, recreation, athletics, and cultural history at City Park.
XIII. Required Revisions Before Board Action
Before the Board votes, the city should revise the Cultural Resources Report and MMRP to address:
• whether the current Addendum remains appropriate under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164 considering substantial new information;
• City Park’s status as a locally designated historic district under Public Resources Code § 21084.1;
• City Park’s eligibility and significance under Criterion 1 / historical association; • The park’s role as a historic cultural landscape;
• Mexican American cultural history, including Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park beginning at least in 1936;
• Organized baseball, including the Corona Athletics and Las Debs de Corona; • Plunge segregation, desegregation, and World War II home-front use; • Historic lighting, mature trees, and other potential contributing landscape features;
• Cumulative impacts to community-associated cultural landscapes; and • Enforceable mitigation measures in the MMRP.
XIV. Request to Table Action
The Board should table this item.
The current CEQA Cultural Resources analysis does not merely contain minor omissions; it fails to evaluate substantial evidence of City Park’s documented historical associations, including Mexican American cultural life, organized baseball, Las Debs de Corona, Cinco de Mayo programming at City Park as early as 1936, Chicano cultural continuity, segregation and desegregation at the Plunge, World War II home-front use, historic lighting, civic assembly features, engineered recreation, and surviving historic plantings.
Under CEQA, a locally designated historic resource cannot be downgraded or treated as less than significant based on an incomplete record. The case law is clear: CEQA documents must provide meaningful disclosure, address substantial evidence, and evaluate cumulative and historical-resource impacts before approval.
City Park can and should be revitalized. But revitalization must proceed based on a complete and accurate cultural resources analysis that recognizes the full history of the park and the communities that made it meaningful.
For these reasons, the Corona Historic Preservation Society respectfully requests that the Board table this item and direct staff revise the Cultural Resources Report, CEQA Addendum, and MMRP before any final action.
Fred Parr, Secretary
Corona Historic Preservation Society
Exhibits Index
City Park Revitalization Project — Cultural Resources / CEQA Submission Exhibit Group A — Organized Baseball at City Park
Exhibit A-1 — Corona Athletics Defeat Elsinore
File: June,4-1945-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents Corona Athletics game at City Park and includes box score and named players.
Exhibit A-2 — Corona A’s Defeat Orange County Champions File: May,15-1933-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents Corona Athletics competitive play and identifies players/manager.
Exhibit A-3 — Two Baseball Games Sunday
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-December,23-1932-p-4.jpeg Use: Documents baseball games at City Park diamond.
Exhibit A-4 — Corona Athletics Tied in League
File: November,13-1950-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg Use: Documents continued Corona Athletics league participation.
Exhibit A-5 — Sports Corner / Long History of Success
File: April,30-1959-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-4.jpeg
Use: Documents later public memory of Corona Athletics success.
Exhibit Group B — Mexican American Organization and Teams
Exhibit B-1 — La Sección Mexicana de Corona / Las Debs
File: August,11-1949-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-7.jpeg
Use: Documents formal Mexican community section and Las Debs de Corona.
Exhibit Group C — Cinco de Mayo and Chicano Cultural Continuity Exhibit C-0 — Earliest Direct Cinco de Mayo / City Park Connection File: April,29-1936-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-4.jpeg
Use: Directly documents a May 5, 1936 “Cinco de Mayo — Mexican Fiesta” that included a parade, music and entertainment program at City Park from 12 noon to 2:30, a baseball game, children’s events, and an evening dance.
Exhibit C-1 — Cinco de Mayo Activities Set
File: April,28-1976-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents parade to City Park, fiesta at City Park, and Corona Athletics vs. young Chicano all-star baseball game.
Exhibit C-2 — Revista de Corona / Cinco de Mayo Preparations File: Corona-Courier-March,29-1929-p-5.jpeg
Use: Documents Spanish-language coverage of Cinco de Mayo preparations and civic organization.
Exhibit C-3 — Revista de Corona / Cinco de Mayo Celebration Coverage File: May,3-1929-Corona-Courier-p-5.jpeg
Use: Documents Spanish-language coverage of Cinco de Mayo celebration activity.
Exhibit C-4 — 1924 Cinco de Mayo Closing Event
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-May,8-1924-p-2.jpeg
Use: Documents a two-day Spanish Cinco de Mayo celebration in Corona and later press/police coverage of the closing event.
Exhibit Group D — Historic Landscape and Plantings
Exhibit D-1 — The Birth of City Park
File: The Birth of City Park.docx
Use: Summarizes original park acquisition, design, planting program, and surviving tree history.
Exhibit D-2 — Experiment Station Context
Sources: U.S. Experiment Station Records; U.S. Experiment Station Reports; UC Citrus
Experiment Station.
Use: Establishes broader agricultural research/plant introduction context.
Exhibit D-3 — Moreton Bay Fig / Bunya Context
Sources: Santa Barbara Moreton Bay Fig; SoCal Landmarks; Santa Barbara Beautiful.
Use: Demonstrates comparable historic tree recognition.
Exhibit Group E — Plunge, Segregation, Desegregation, Civil Rights Exhibit E-1 — Plunge History
File: PLunge History.docx
Use: Documents Plunge construction, Mexican Monday, desegregation, World War II use, and related civil-rights history.
Exhibit Group G — Historic Lighting and Civic Features
Exhibit G-1 — Give Posts for City Park Light
File: June,7-1924-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-5.jpeg and/or Corona-DailyIndependent-June,7-1924-p-5.jpeg Use: Documents ornamental light posts offered for City Park, including possible bandstand or municipal plunge lighting.
Exhibit G-2 — No More Signs for City Park
File: November,6-1924-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg Use: Documents City action regulating signage in City Park, supporting design/governance context.
Exhibit Group H — Women’s Recreation at City Park
Exhibit H-1 — Double-header at City Park Tonight
File: August,27-1947-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-2.jpeg
Use: Documents girls’ game at City Park involving Corona Debs.
Exhibit H-2 — Debs Will Practice at City Park Tonight
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-May,28-1953-p-2.jpeg
Use: Documents Corona Debs practice at City Park and league formation.
Exhibit H-3 — Debs Win 8 to 7
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-May,13-1949-p-1.jpeg and/or May,13-1949-CoronaPage 2303 of 2528 Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg
Use: Identifies Corona Debs win and named pitchers Gloria Zilioli and Emma Gallagher.
Exhibit Group I — Historic Landscape Features
Exhibit I-1 — Bunya Bunya Tree Feature
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-August,23-1968-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents Bunya Bunya tree at City Park as a recognized park feature.
Exhibit Group J — Civic Events and Public Gatherings
Exhibit J-1 — Corona Road Race Celebration Coverage
File: June,1-1953-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents large civic celebration and Road Race public programming.
Exhibit J-2 — Meet Governor Knight at City Park
File: May,24-1954-Corona-Daily-Independent-p-8.jpeg
Use: Documents Governor Knight public event at City Park band shell.
Exhibit Group K — Engineered Recreation
Exhibit K-1 — Quarter Midget Races at City Park
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-March,22-1957-p-3.jpeg
Use: Documents quarter-midget racing and City Park track use.
Exhibit K-2 — Dead-Heat Finish at City Park Races
File: Corona-Daily-Independent-May,26-1958-p-3.jpeg
Use: Documents recurring racing events and public attendance.
Exhibit Group L — Original Planning and Design
Exhibit L-1 — Corona City Park: A Reflection of Good Planting File: Corona-Courier-June,3-1921-p-1.jpeg
Use: Documents bond funding, planning committees, civic participation, and deliberate planting strategy.
1 Brendan Dalde
From: CHPS <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 10:08 AM
To: Mallory Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Kacie Rubalcava <[email protected]>; Rich Winn <[email protected]>; Amanda Kalkanis <[email protected]>; Julie Bruckner <[email protected]>; Wes Speake <[email protected]>; Tony Daddario <[email protected]>; Tom Richins <[email protected]>; Jim Steiner <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Jacob Ellis <[email protected]>; Donna Finch <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>; Jacque Casillas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Amelia Nieves <[email protected]>; Carol Soliday <[email protected]>; CHPS <[email protected]>; Eric Bergreen <[email protected]>; Janine Stallings <[email protected]>; Mary Winn <[email protected]>; Paula Munoz <[email protected]>; Rich Winn <[email protected]>; Wes Speak <[email protected]>; Wes Speake <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow up-6/29/26 HPB agenda item 7.1
[CAUTION] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of the Corona Historic Preservation Board,
On behalf of the Corona Historic Preservation Society (CHPS), thank you for continuing the discussion on the recent item concerning City Park. We appreciated the opportunity to provide additional input.
As mentioned at your June 29th meeting, we are 100% in support of the Historic Preservation Board, City Council, and Sta2, and are here to help in any way possible.
We believe that revitalization, historic preservation, and recognition can and often should be aligned.
Ensuring that City Park is properly evaluated and, if appropriate, continues to be designated as a historic resource will strengthen this valuable community resource.
The issue before the Board is not whether improvements should occur, but whether we are applying the Municipal Code accurately and fairly and doing what we can to honor a historical asset.
The 2024 historic evaluation does not fully address key elements required under the Municipal Code. The analysis is narrowly focused and fails to meaningfully evaluate City Park’s cultural significance, its longstanding community use, or its role in shaping Corona’s social and historical identity.
The CHPS believes it is important to recognize that the EIR Addendum’s conclusion, that City Park is no longer eligible as a historic resource due to a loss of integrity, goes beyond a technical determination and e2ectively narrows the historic context of City Park.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
2 By emphasizing physical alterations and remaining built features, the analysis overlooks the park’s enduring cultural, social, and civic importance, including its role as a continuous gathering place for generations and its identity as Corona’s first community park.
The report should ensure the analysis reflects both the full intent of the City’s historic resource standards and the broader community significance of City Park.
CHPS is concerned that the public presentation of City Park as a historic, community-defining asset does not align with the conclusions presented in the CEQA documentation.
While City materials, planning e2orts, and public messaging consistently describe City Park as the City’s oldest community park, a central gathering place, and a space reflecting decades of community history and identity, the EIR Addendum reaches a contrary conclusion by determining that the park is no longer eligible as a historic resource due to a loss of integrity.
This disconnect raises a concern. If the City itself acknowledges the park’s longstanding cultural and civic importance in its public planning and revitalization e2orts, it is unclear why that same broader historical and cultural context is not fully evaluated or reflected in the CEQA analysis.
This inconsistency suggests that the environmental review may be a narrower, physical-focused standard of significance that does not fully align with the City’s own recognition of City Park as a defining historic and cultural landscape.
The CHPS respectfully requests that sta2 address the following items prior to bringing this matter back to the Historic Preservation Board.
Apply Municipal Code Criteria Clearly and Completely.
We believe that a new analysis of how City Park meets or does not meet each applicable criterion in the Corona Municipal Code for Historic District designation, and Landmark (individual property) designation, is warranted. Why does the City Park qualify under either or both designation pathways, and what is the reasoning? Timeline: acknowledgment ASAP- completed in 12 months Expand Cultural and Community Context.
Complete an evaluation of the park’s role in Corona’s history, including ethnic and generational use and cultural events and traditions. Provide context consistent with recognized cultural resources, where significance is based on community identity rather than solely on physical structures. Include interpretation and recognition that reflects not just the citrus industry, but the people and communities who contributed to the City’s history. Timeline: before the park opens Evaluate Heritage Trees as Contributing Resources.
Identify, document, and list heritage trees within City Park, including at a minimum the Morton Bay fig and the Bunya tree. Analyze whether these trees contribute to the park’s overall historic character. Clarify how these resources were considered or why they were excluded from prior analysis, including CEQA documentation. Timeline: before the park opens
Clarify Methodology and Assumptions.
3 Identify any limitations, omissions, or gaps in the cultural resource analyses prepared in 2024 and 2026. Explain the methodology, sources, and thresholds used in determining significance. Timeline: by the end of the year
Incorporate more historical relevance and education into the revitalization plan.
Consider the placement of the CHPS historical Plunge marker or other educational references. Use the park's historic lighting elements, even in decorative form. Consider a story walk or similar feature that tells Corona History from the Park’s perspective. Incorporate documented local historical accounts into the revised analysis. Timeline- before final contract approval We would sincerely appreciate it if the Leadership and Sta2 of the City of Corona would consider these requests.
These requests are intended to ensure that we all have a complete, defensible, and code-consistent record before making an important, permanent, and financially significant decision.
We have always considered our organization a partner with the City in Historic Preservation, and we want to be clear once again that nothing in our actions or requests is intended to oppose the revitalization of City Park.
Investment in the park is important and long overdue.
Sincerely and respectfully,
The Board of Directors of the Corona Historic Preservation Society
RESPONSE TO COMMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE July 14, 2026
TO City of Corona
CONTACT Rachel McLure, CIP Supervisor
FROM Malia Durand, Principal in Charge and Emma Haines, Project Manager SUBJECT Response to Comment Memorandum on Corona City Park Project PROJECT NUMBER RIOS-01
Prior to the City of Corona Historic Preservation Board (HPB) review of the proposed project on June 29, 2026, the City received a letter from Fred Parr, on behalf of the Corona Historic Preservation Society on June 29, 2026. This memo contains a response to address the comment letter to provide a comprehensive record for the HPB’s consideration of the proposed project.
Project Background
The Archaeological and Architectural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (AARIE Report) prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project was developed to evaluate the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically whether the project site contains historical resources and whether those resources retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance.
As documented in Section 4.2 of the AARIE Report, the evaluation included a thorough records search and comprehensive archival research. In addition, interested parties, including the Corona Historic Preservation Society, were consulted during preparation of the report. On March 28, 2024, the technical consultants solicited input and historical information from Corona Historic Preservation Society regarding the significance of City Park. Correspondence between the consultants and Richard Winn, representing Corona Historic Preservation Society, is included in Appendix A of the AARIE Report and demonstrates that CHPS was provided an opportunity to contribute information during the preparation of the analysis.
Accordingly, the AARIE Report was prepared using accepted professional methodologies and is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Based on its evaluation, the report concluded that the project site and its individual features do not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of
July 14, 2026| Page 2
Historical Resources (CRHR), the City of Corona Landmark Listing Criteria, or as a contributor to a local historic district. Because the project would not result in a significant impact to a historical resource under CEQA, the Project does not require mitigation related to historical resources, and these findings do not warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Response to Comments
INTRODUCTION
This serves as an introduction to the comment letter. The Corona Historic Preservation Society identifies they support the revitalization of the City park, however they state the Cultural resources Report and CEQA Addendum is inadequate as it omits the historical and cultural significance of City Park by overlooking the broader important historical context regarding City Park's role in Mexican-American history, civic events, recreation, and community life.
Response
The comment letter provides historical information regarding the social and cultural use of City Park by the Mexican-American community. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project.
The AARIE Report prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project is designed to address questions relevant to CEQA relating to the presence of Historical Resources, and its ability to convey that significance through remaining physical features. The historical analysis considered the park’s use as a planned and designed public park as well as its use by the community over time.
The AARIE Report prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project uses a systematic approach to assessing historical significance, relying on the key criteria set forth by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), Corona City Landmark Listing Criteria, and Corona City historic district listing. It contains a robust review of available literature, newspaper articles, and building permits related to the history of the park and included a request for information to the Corona Historic Preservation Society. The results of this comprehensive assessment by a qualified architectural historian indicate that no historical resources are present.
The comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information, which contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria, specifically criterion A/1 and B/2.
July 14, 2026| Page 3
Further specific comments provided are addressed below.
COMMENT I. CEQA REQUIRES FULL AND ACCURATE EVALUATION BEFORE
PROJECT APPROVAL
The letter states that new historical information requires preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report rather than an Addendum.
Response
Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, additional environmental review is required only when substantial changes to the project, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance would result in new significant environmental impacts, substantially more severe impacts, or new feasible mitigation measures.
Much of the historical society letter points to a focus on Mexican American cultural history. This historical context is important to the community. However, this cultural history does not appear specifically tied to City Park in itself. As the Historical Society states “residents in Corona transformed leisure spaces like City Park, including baseball games, parades, festivals, and churches, into spaces where residents built solidarity, expressed identity, voiced grievances, and laid the groundwork for later civil rights activities.” Under this definition, all spaces that were used for such activities by the Mexican American community throughout Corona would qualify for historical significance. Even if additional local Mexican American history were added to the context, the additional information would not alter the report's conclusions regarding historical significance, particularly as it relates to NRPH/CRHR Criterion A/1 regarding associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Therefore, the conclusion that this criterion are not met is well-supported there would be no new or more severe environmental impact under CEQA as it relates to historical resources.
Because the comments do not identify new significant impacts, changed circumstances, or feasible mitigation measures previously unavailable, the standards for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have not been met.
COMMENT II. CITY PARK MUST BE EVALUATED AS A HISTORIC CULTURAL
LANDSCAPE
The commenter states that the Cultural Resources Assessment focuses too heavily on physical resources and should evaluate City Park as a historic cultural landscape.
July 14, 2026| Page 4
Response
The proposed project recognizes City Park as a designated historic district and evaluates the proposed improvements in accordance with CEQA and applicable historic preservation standards. It considers all aspects of historical integrity as defined in the NRHP, CRHR, Corona City Landmark Listing Criteria, and Corona City historic district listing. These criteria are not limited to physical resources, and also require consideration of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and association of the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Consideration of Criterion A/1 and B/2 were thoroughly documented and considered when determining historical significance of the park.
The repeated use of the park by a specific group in the community for its intended use (baseball games, community events, women’s recreation, celebrations, etc.) does not elevate the park itself to a level of historical significance under any relevant historical theme. To do so, the historical society would have to demonstrate how City Park itself exemplifies those historical themes (ex. Mexican American cultural history, Chicano baseball, women’s athletics, etc.), and specifically how it rises to the level of significance under those themes, what elements of the park actually portray those themes, and how the park retains sufficient integrity to continue to show those themes. Evaluation of a historic cultural landscape involves evaluation of both significance and integrity. While historical associations and events are important, a landscape must also retain sufficient physical characteristics, like organization, circulation, vegetation patterns, design, setting, and feeling, to convey that significance. For example, the nowdemolished 1920s era Municipal Plunge was an important historic feature associated with the park's social and recreational history, but its loss shows how the removal of character-defining features has diminished the park's overall integrity.
The evaluation considered all aspects of integrity consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards and found the park does not meet the criteria.
COMMENT III. CITY PARK WAS A DELIBERATELY PLANNED CIVIC LANDSCAPE Historical summaries were submitted with this comment letter to support that City Park was established during a major period of Corona civic development.
Response
The AARIE Report prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project, specifically Section
3.4.1, History of Corona City Park, acknowledges the park was a planned municipal park and attached to the City’s original circular plan. Multiple archives were consulted in the preparation of the AARIE, and are consistent with those provided by the commenter in their theme and content. The comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park, which contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated
July 14, 2026| Page 5
into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria, specifically criterion A/1 and B/2.
COMMENT IV. HISTORIC PLANTINGS AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES REQUIRE
FORMAL EVALUATION UNDER CEQA
The commenter identifies that historic trees, lighting, civic features, and other landscape elements were not adequately evaluated.
Response
The project preserves the remaining identified contributing historic resources. Notably, the Historic Preservation Society's own 2024 comments identified the surviving fountain, Founders Rock, Sunkist compressor, and mature historic trees as the park's principal remaining historic resources. The current comments expand upon the park's broader historical associations but do not undermine the City's evaluation of the remaining contributing resources.
While comments identify historical references related to trees, lighting, and other park features, the mention of these features does not prove that they or retain sufficient integrity to contribute to the significance of the historic district. The AARIE Report prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project evaluated the remaining physical resources based on available research and field evidence (see Section 5.6.1 of the AARIE Report). The report concluded that although the landscape features, including the trees on the project site, were identified as remaining features dating from the period of significance, the project site is ineligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and Corona Landmark and Historic District eligibility criteria. Additionally, an arborist report was prepared for the project, which identified the current conditions of all trees on site, provided recommendations for which trees would be eligible for relocation, as well as best practices for tree protection zones, barriers, and temporary irrigation systems to ensure tree survival during and after project construction (see Appendix C, Arborist Report, of the Addendum). The additional information does not alter the evaluation of contributing resources or the project's impact analysis.
COMMENT V. HISTORIC LIGHTING AND CIVIC ASSEMBLY FEATURES REQUIRE
EVALUATION
The commenter states that historical evidence demonstrates ornamental lighting and civic assembly features, including a bandstand, were integral components of City Park's historic design and function. They contend that the MMRP should require evaluation of existing lighting by a qualified architectural historian prior to removal or alteration and provide preservation measures for any historic fixtures. The commenter also asserts that the Cultural Resources
July 14, 2026| Page 6
Report should have evaluated the band shell's historical significance and its role as a civic gathering space before its demolition.
Response
The comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
The AARIE Report prepared for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project identified the Light Poles as a remaining feature from the period of significance (see Section 5.6.1 of the AARIE Report) however, as concluded in the AARIE Report, the park does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a City of Corona Historic Landmark, either individually or as part of an existing historic district..
COMMENT VI. CITY PARK WAS A REGIONAL CIVIC, POLITICAL, AND
RECREATIONAL VENUE
The commenter states that historical newspaper articles demonstrate City Park has long served as a civic gathering place for public events, celebrations, political speeches, and organized recreational activities. They contend that these historical uses support evaluation of the park under California Register Criterion 1/CRHR Criterion A for its association with significant events and broad patterns of local and California history. The commenter concludes that the park's significance extends beyond its physical features to its longstanding role as a programmed civic and recreational landscape.
Response
The provided information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation provided by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
The Preservation Society states the importance of civic events and sports recreation in Comments VI-VIII. Public parks throughout southern California have a history of providing space for civic events and sports recreation for the Mexican American community, including baseball, and the function of City Park was is not considered unique for the region. Regular continued use of the park for its intended function does not demonstrate itself to be a significant historical event, as it relates to the eligibility criteria for the CRHR or NRHP. The additional documentation
July 14, 2026| Page 7
mentioned by the Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
COMMENT VII. BASEBALL AT CITY PARK IS DIRECTLY DOCUMENTED AND
CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT
The commenter states that historical newspaper articles and published sources demonstrate City Park's longstanding association with organized baseball, including the Corona Athletics, and its significance to the Mexican American community. They state that this history should be evaluated under the California Register as an important historical and cultural association rather than treated as a generic recreational use. The commenter further asserts that although the baseball field has been altered or removed, the park's documented role in organized baseball and community identity remains historically significant.
Response
As previously noted, the comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical use of the park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. Public parks throughout southern California have a history of providing space for civic events and sports recreation for the Mexican American community, including baseball, so the function of City Park was hardly unique for the region. Utilizing the park for its intended function does not demonstrate itself to be a significant historical event, as it relates to the eligibility criteria for the CRHR or NRHP. The additional documentation mentioned by the Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
COMMENT VIII. LAS DEBS DE CORONA AND WOMEN’S RECREATION
STRENGTHEN THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
The commenter states that historical newspaper articles document the participation of Las Debs de Corona and other women's softball teams at City Park, demonstrating that the park supported organized recreation for women and girls’ baseball. They contend that this history, including its connection to Mexican American community heritage, should be evaluated in the Cultural Resources Report as part of the park's historical significance.
RESPONSE
As previously noted, the comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. Public parks
July 14, 2026| Page 8
throughout southern California have a history of providing space for civic events and sports recreation for the Mexican American community, including baseball, so the function of City Park was hardly unique for the region. Utilizing the park for its intended function does not demonstrate itself to be a significant historical event, as it relates to the eligibility criteria for the CRHR or NRHP. The additional documentation mentioned by the Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
COMMENT IX. CINCO DE MAYO EVIDENCE DIRECTLY CONNECTS CITY PARK TO
MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL LIFE
The commenter states that historical records document City Park as a longstanding location for Cinco de Mayo celebrations, Mexican American cultural events, baseball activities, and community gatherings dating back to 1936. They contend that these records demonstrate the park’s association with Mexican American identity, cultural continuity, and community history, which should be evaluated under the California Register. The commenter asserts that the Cultural Resources Report did not adequately address these documented cultural uses and their contribution to the park’s historical significance.
Response
As previously noted, the comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The historical analysis looked at the park’s use as a planned and designed public park as well as its use by the community over time. As is common with parks across the County, park features will be used for Cinco de Mayo celebrations, public gatherings, recreation, and community life. Public parks throughout southern California have a history of providing space for civic events for the Mexican American community, so the function of City Park was hardly unique for the region. Utilizing the park for its intended function does not demonstrate itself to be a significant historical event, as it relates to the eligibility criteria.
The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
COMMENT X. THE MUNICIPAL PLUNGE IS CENTRAL TO CITY PARK’S
SEGREGATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY
The commenter states that historical records demonstrate the City Plunge was a significant feature of City Park and was associated with broader social history, including segregation, desegregation, military use, and community recreation. They contend that the park’s period of significance should extend beyond 1913–1930 to encompass documented cultural, civic,
July 14, 2026| Page 9
recreational, and social activities through later decades. The commenter further asserts that the City’s analysis should account for these historical associations, including the significance of the existing historic marker.
Response
As previously noted, the comment letter provides additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. While historical associations and events are important, a landscape must also retain sufficient physical characteristics, like organization, circulation, vegetation patterns, design, setting, and feeling, to convey that significance. For example, the now-demolished 1920s era Municipal Plunge was an important historic feature associated with the park's social and recreational history, but its loss shows how the removal of character-defining features has diminished the park's overall integrity.
The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria.
Section 3.4.4, Period of Significance, of the AARIE Report prepared for the proposed project identifies the period of significant for the Corona City Park. The AARIE Report has determined that the period of significance for Corona City Park is 1913 to 1930. This date range captures the first phase of development at the park, which occurred from the park’s opening in 1913 to completion of 1920s-era improvements (such as the Municipal Plunge), and the establishment of the present-day driveway configuration.
COMMENT XI. THE CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS CONTAINS FUNDAMENTAL
CEQA DEFECTS
The commenter asserts that the Cultural Resources Report contains broader analytical deficiencies, including failure to evaluate City Park’s significance under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with historical events and community patterns. They contend that the analysis improperly discounts significance based on physical alterations, fails to adequately disclose and evaluate key historical evidence, and does not consider cumulative impacts associated with the loss of culturally significant community landscapes. The commenter concludes that additional analysis is needed to fully evaluate the park’s historical, cultural, and community significance under CEQA.
Response
See responses to comments Introduction through X above.
July 14, 2026| Page 10
The AARIE Report was prepared using accepted professional methodologies and is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Based on its evaluation, the report concluded that the project site and its individual features do not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, the City of Corona Landmark Listing Criteria, or as a contributor to a local historic district. Because the project would not result in a significant impact to a historical resource under CEQA, the Project does not require mitigation related to historical resources, and these findings do not warrant preparation of an EIR.
COMMENT XII. THE MMRP MUST BE REVISED
Additional mitigation measures should be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Response
The recommendations contained in the comment letter primarily involve expanded documentation, interpretation, or preservation preferences rather than mitigation measures necessary to reduce identified significant environmental impacts.
Because the comments do not identify a new historical resource, a new significant impact, or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed, additional mitigation is not required under CEQA. Accordingly, revisions to the MMRP are not warranted.
COMMENT XIII. REQUIRED REVISIONS BEFORE BOARD ACTION
The comment restates main points of the comment letter and requested revisions.
Response
See responses to comments Introduction through XII above. The comment letter contains additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria. Because the comments do not identify a new historical resource, a new significant impact, or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed, additional mitigation is not required under CEQA.
COMMENT XIV. REQUEST TO TABLE ACTION
The comment restates main points of the comment letter.
July 14, 2026| Page 11
Response
See responses to comments Introduction through XII above. The comment letter contains additional historical information regarding the historical development of City Park. This information contributes to the historical record and has been incorporated into the administrative record for the proposed project. The additional documentation mentioned by the Corona Historic Preservation Society primarily expands the historical narrative of the park rather than providing new evidence that alters its evaluation under eligibility criteria. Because the comments do not identify a new historical resource, a new significant impact, or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed, additional mitigation is not required under CEQA.
City Park
MARD2026-0002
Brendan Dalde
Associate Planner
The Ask
That the Historic Preservation Board:
1. Approve alterations to City Park, as proposed by the City Park Revitalization Project; and
2. Adopt the General Plan EIR Addendum prepared for the City Park Revitalization Project.
Overview
1. Why this item is being
reviewed.
2. Topics raised at June 29 HPB
Meeting.
3. Review the purpose of the
Board’s review.
4. How this project meets the
requirements of CMC §
17.63.120(C).
5. Discussion & Decision
Why is this Before the Historic Preservation Board?
• Major alterations to historic resources require the Board’s review • Review authority is established under CMC § 17.63.120(C) and (D) • City Park is designated as Historic District (HD-005) on the Corona Register of Historic Resources
• Resolution defines characteristics that qualify park as Historic District
Topics Raised by the Historic
Preservation Board
1. Founder’s Monument 2. Sunkist Air Compressor (steam engine) 3. Moreton Bay Fig Tree 4. Drinking Fountain Topic #1
Plaques for the contributing
historic resources
1 2
3 4
Explanation:
• Founder’s Monument is the only existing
object identified in the resolution
• 4 objects will be preserved onsite
• The resolution identifies historic
resources as a defining element
• The Board can make a condition of
approval to add informational plaques
for these contributing historic resources
Topic #2
Preservation of
existing trees
Explanation:
The plan ensures the Moreton Bay Fig and
Bunya tree are preserved in situ.
The plan preserves the Canary Island Palms,
Oaks, Jacarandas, and Australian Flame Trees.
357 total trees
Preserving 130 of the existing
67 trees remain in place;
63 trees will be relocated and
preserved onsite.
227 new, large box trees
Topic #3
Preservation of existing lamps
Explanation:
• These are concrete replicas with a similar
appearance as the original cast iron lamps
• The existing lamps do not meet current
state energy and light codes, do not meet
minimum lighting requirements for a safe
environment, and many are damaged.
• Heritage style metal acorn globe lamps will
be used to meet code requirements while
preserving the aesthetic of the park
Topic #4
Addition of informational elements
that discuss the history of park users
Municipal Plunge
Picnic at City Park c. 1950
Explanation:
• The resolution includes the park historically
served as a gathering place for the
community
• The Board can make it a condition of approval
to add an informational plaque about its
historical value as a gathering place.
Topic #5
Fees to Use City Park Amenities
Explanation:
• The fees charged for park programs
and amenities are established by
City Council and are not within the
scope of the HPB’s review.
Topic #6
HPB recommendations and
conditions of approval
Explanation:
• The HPB is advisory to the City
Council.
• All decisions, recommendations,
and conditions of approval are
subject to final review and
approval by the City Council.
What is the Scope of the Historic Preservation
Board’s Review tonight?
Pursuant to CMC Section 17.63.120(C), the following principles shall be adhered to in the review and approval of the City Park Revitalization Project:
(1) The distinguishing original qualities or character of the historic resource shall not be compromised. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible; (2) The colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features and details, height, scale, massing and methods of construction proposed shall be consistent with the historic period and character-defining elements of the historic resource and compatible with adjacent structures.
City Council Resolution No. 2001-51
In designating City Park as a Historic District, City Council Resolution No. 2001-51 listed the following defining qualities and characteristics:
• Geographically unified area
• Contains a concentration of contributing historic resources • Much of the original landscaping and the Founder’s Monument remain • Civic and historic value defined by its open space, picnic tables, shelters, landscaping, trees and shade, recreational opportunities, and its relaxing beauty • Served as a gathering place for civic events, family reunions, church picnics, games, sports, and romantic walks
ies and Character Project ProposesCity Park Historic District - Qualit Open space reinforces City Park as a place of
community gathering
Many trees will be preserved, new shade trees added.
Aquatic Center restores a recreation function once
provided by the “Municipal Plunge.”
New amenities and infrastructure reinforce City Park as a functional, safe, and appealing place to gather and visit, for civic events, and for sports and recreation.
Preserves the park's landscape, mature trees, and
shaded character.
Civic and historic value defined by its open
space, landscaped community gathering space
for civic events, recreation, and public
enjoyment.
Gathering place for civic events, family reunions,
church picnics, games and sports; accessible to
all residents.
How This Project Satisfies § 17.63.120(C)
Finding #1 – Part 1: The original qualities or character of the historic resource shall not be compromised.
The project restores & reinforces the qualities and characteristics of City Park consistent with Resolution No. 2001-051:
Finding #1 – Part 2: The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
How This Project Satisfies § 17.63.120(C)
ies and Character Project ProposesCity Park Historic District - Qualit Open space, trees, shade, activities, picnic tables, gathering spaces, and well-designed landscaping described as
character defining features in the resolution will remain an integral part of the park
Founders Rock - the only remaining physical object
identified in the resolution - will be preserved onsite Three additional objects not identified in the resolution will be preserved at City Park:
1. Sunkist Air Compressor
2. Fig Tree
3. Drinking Fountain
• Contains a concentration of contributing historic
resources, maintaining the districts historic
character
The historic material and architectural features described in Resolution No 2001-051 will remain on site
Finding #2: The colors, textures, materials, and other design elements, including scale and massing, are consistent with character-defining elements of the historic resource.
How This Project Satisfies § 17.63.120(C)
ies and Character Project ProposesCity Park Historic District - Qualit Earth-tone colors, stucco walls, roofing material inspired by terra cotta tiles (Spanish arch.)
Design elements pay homage to Corona’s architectural & agricultural history
Packing house architectural influences
Heritage style light fixtures
Water tower at splash pad reminiscent of historic
Sunkist water tower
Playground reflects citrus packing industry
Scale and massing of new structures appropriate within 20- acre City Park
Proposed facilities reinforce the park as a place for gathering, walking, sports, and events
• Served as a gathering place for civic events,
family reunions, church picnics, games and
sports; accessible to all residents
• Civic and historic value defined by its open
space, landscaped community gathering space
for civic events, recreation, and public enjoyment
The design elements are consistent with the character defining elements of the historic resource described in Resolution No 2001-051 Page 2334 of 2528 CEQA Analysis
• The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a project before approving a project.
• General Plan EIR certified by the City in 2020.
• An Addendum to the General Plan EIR was prepared to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the alterations to City Park. • The alterations to City Park will not result in significant environmental impacts or intensify impacts previously identified in the EIR.
• All potential impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through incorporation of mitigation measures.
Recommendation
That the Historic Preservation Board:
1. Approve alterations to City Park, as proposed by the City Park Revitalization Project; and
2. Adopt the General Plan EIR Addendum prepared for the City Park Revitalization Project.
Thank you
June 2026 | EIR Addendum
State Clearinghouse No. 2018081039
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR
ADDENDUM
City of Corona
Prepared for:
City of Corona
Contact: Rachel McLure, CIP Supervisor
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
951.736.2400
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Malia Durand, Principal
Emma Haines, Associate
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Table of Contents
June 2026 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM.................................................................................................................1
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION........................................................................4
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................7
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................7
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 19
3.1 APPROVED PROJECT..................................................................................................................................19
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................19
3.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ................................................................................................................27
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 29
4.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................................29
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..........................................................31
4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)........................................31
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..............................................................................32
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 35
5.1 AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................................................35
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES..................................................................................43
5.3 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................................47
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................................................59
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................70
5.6 ENERGY...........................................................................................................................................................77
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS...............................................................................................................................83
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................91
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................................96
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 103
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................................. 113
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................ 116
5.13 NOISE............................................................................................................................................................. 119
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING............................................................................................................. 134
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES...................................................................................................................................... 137
5.16 RECREATION.............................................................................................................................................. 143
5.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.............................................................................................................. 146
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................... 151
5.19 UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES................................................................................................... 157
5.20 WILDFIRE..................................................................................................................................................... 165
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................................ 169
6. FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................... 171
7. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 173 CITY OF CORONA (LEAD AGENCY).................................................................................................................. 173 PLACEWORKS (CEQA CONSULTANT)............................................................................................................... 173
8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 175
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C Arborist Report
Appendix D Archaeological and Architectural History Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report Appendix E Noise Analysis
Appendix F Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment
Appendix G Transportation Assessment
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Table of Contents
June 2026 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Local Vicinity.......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph with Photo Locations.......................................................................................13 Figure 4 Project Site Photographs...................................................................................................................15 Figure 5 Surrounding Uses Photographs........................................................................................................17 Figure 6 Overall Site Plan..................................................................................................................................21 Figure 7 Community Center and Aquatics Center Site Plan .......................................................................23 Figure 8 Horizontal Light Levels at Property Line .......................................................................................41 Figure 9 Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................................121 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Corona City Park Regular Occurring Events Calendar................................................................25 Table 2 Corona City Park Annual Event Calendar......................................................................................25 Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions......................................................................49 Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions...........................................................................51 Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions...................................................................................................52 Table 6 Operation-Related Electricity Consumption..................................................................................79 Table 7 Operation-Related Natural Gas Consumption ..............................................................................80 Table 8 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions..................................................................................92 Table 9 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary in A-weighted Sound Levels.............................120 Table 10 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels..................................................................................124 Table 11 Weekday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet........................126 Table 12 Saturday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet.........................126 Table 13 Project-Related Amphitheater Noise, dBA ..................................................................................128 Table 14 Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment................................................130 Table 15 Proposed Increase in Potable Water Demand.............................................................................161 Table 16 Landfill Capacity ...............................................................................................................................163 Table 17 Proposed Increase in Solid Waste Generation.............................................................................163
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Abbreviations and Acronym
Page iv PlaceWorks
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AARIE Archaeological and Architectural Resources Inventory and Evaluation AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT average daily traffic
amsl above mean sea level
AQMP air quality management plan
BMPs best management practices
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDE California Department of Education
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFD Corona Fire Department
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CGP Construction General Permit
CMC City Municipal Code
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNUSD Corona-Norco Unified School District
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Corps US Army Corps of Engineers
CPD Corona Police Department
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Abbreviations and Acronyms
June 2026 Page v
DSA Division of the State Architect
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EAP emergency action plan
Fc foot candles
EIR environmental impact report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPO emergency operations plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ldn day-night noise level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
LCFS low-carbon fuel standard
LRA local responsibility area
LST localized significance thresholds
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MMT million metric tons
MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MT metric ton
MTCO2w metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOX nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
Abbreviations and Acronym
Page vi PlaceWorks
PPV peak particle velocity
PRD permit registration documents
PRMMP Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan RCNM roadway construction noise model
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SLM sound level meter
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SOX sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRA source receptor area [or state responsibility area] SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP urban water management plan
VdB velocity decibels
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WQCP Water Quality Control Plan
June 2026 Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM
This document is an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2018081039) for the City of Corona General Plan Technical Update (GP), which was certified on June 3, 2020 (referred to as the Approved Project). The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed Corona City Park Revitalization Project (proposed project) would modify the Approved Project in such a way as to result in new environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects or would otherwise trigger a need for subsequent environmental review.
The Draft EIR for the GP was circulated for public review from December 19, 2019, through February 3, 2020. A Final EIR was prepared and was approved on June 3, 2020, by the City of Corona. The 2020 Draft EIR and Final EIR are collectively referred to as the 2020 Certified EIR.
The 2020 Certified EIR, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed modifications to the Approved Project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000–15387). This Addendum evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Corona City Park Revitalization Project.
1.1.1 Environmental Procedures
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum focuses on whether implementation of the proposed project would require major revisions to the 2020 Certified EIR due to the potential for new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a]) A supplement to an EIR (supplemental EIR), which is narrower in scope than a subsequent EIR, may be prepared if any of the above criteria apply, but “only minor changes or additions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)). In the absence of the need to prepare either a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an addendum to a previously Certified EIR may be prepared. Section 15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously Certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
June 2026 Page 3
on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164)
This Addendum to the 2020 Certified EIR has been prepared because the evaluation of the Corona City Park Revitalization Project, also known as the proposed project, has not indicated any of the circumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As demonstrated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed project would not result in impacts that differ from the Approved Project, and it would not trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under the criteria in Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Update and would not require changes to the Approved Project. This Addendum demonstrates that no substantial changes are proposed to the Approved Project or have occurred in the City that would require major revisions to the 2020 Certified EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 2020 Certified EIR.
1.1.2 Scope and Analysis for This Addendum
This Addendum analyzes the changes and potential impacts of the proposed project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the City certified the EIR. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the City approved the 2020 Certified EIR. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed project. This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis (see Section 5, Environmental Analysis), which addresses environmental checklist issues section by section.
The proposed project would not change the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site as evaluated under the 2020 Certified EIR, nor would the proposed project change the overall buildout of the City as evaluated under the Approved Project. Additionally, no substantial changes in circumstances under Section 15162(a)(2) have occurred since the certification of the 2020 Certified EIR that would indicate new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified. The background environmental conditions have not significantly changed since the certification of the 2020 Certified EIR. The City of Corona has received no information indicating a substantial change in any circumstances that would result in a new or substantially greater significant impact.
In addition, no information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2020 Certified EIR preparation has been revealed that shows new or substantially greater significant impacts would result (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). There are no new or different mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the Approved Project but that are not adopted.
The proposed project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Since this Addendum does not identify new or substantially greater significant impacts, circulation for public review and comment is not necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[c]). The City of Corona Historic
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
Preservation Board will review this Addendum to ensure that the project complies with the City of Coronas Historic Preservation Guidelines If the Corona City Historic Preservation Board approves this Addendum, it shall be required to make findings by way of a resolution, including a finding that this Addendum provides the basis and substantial evidence for the decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[e]).
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Corona General Plan Technical Update (GP) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018081039). A Final EIR was prepared and was approved on June 3, 2020, by the City of Corona. This environmental document is available on the City of Corona website. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the GP EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference.
The GP EIR analyzed the comprehensive update of the Corona General Plan (Approved Project). The GP EIR addressed the entire territory within the plan area’s boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The General Plan update also included forecasts of long-term conditions and outlined development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. Specifically, the General Plan update identified policies related to promoting compatible land uses, preserving neighborhood character, promoting healthy neighborhoods, and promoting the enforcement of standards.
1.2.1 2019 Draft EIR for Corona General Plan Technical Update The City of Corona circulated the 2019 Draft EIR for public review from December 19, 2019, through February 3, 2020, and 20 topics were evaluated in detail.
Ten environmental categories were considered less than significant without incorporating mitigation:
Aesthetics
Energy
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Three environmental categories were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
June 2026 Page 5
Biological Resources
Geology and Soils
Tribal Cultural Resources
Seven environmental categories were considered to have significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be alleviated by feasible mitigation.
Air Quality
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mineral Resources
Noise
Transportation
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 7
2. Environmental Setting
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Corona City Park (project site) is located at 930 East 6th Street in the City of Corona, which is in the northwestern corner of Riverside County. The project site is 19.6 acres and consists of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 117-310-001-2 and 117-301-010-2.
Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route (SR) 91 located 0.20 miles to the north and Interstate 15 (I-15) located approximately 0.40 miles to the east (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The project site is bounded by Quarry Street, residential homes, and the Corona Community Veterinary Hospital to the north; Rimpau Avenue and the Municipal Plunge to the east; East 6th Street to the south; and Grand Boulevard, residential uses, vehicle-mechanic shops, and commercial uses to the west (Figure 2, Local Vicinity).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 Existing Development and Land Use
The project site currently operates as the existing Corona City Park and has a land use designation of Parks and Open Space Recreational (OS-R) and a zoning designation of Parks (P)(Corona 2024a).
The project site has a gradual downward slope from the southwest to the northeast. The western portion of the project site contains an amphitheater, various shade structures, and a playground area with play structures.
The western strip of the project site contains the YMCA with three buildings, a hard top and playground area, and the city public pool with a pool building/locker room. The central portion of the project site contains an open field area, basketball courts, a playground with play structures, and internal roadways with parking lots.
The eastern portion of the project site contains the skate park, open parkway space, and undeveloped park space. The Municipal Plunge is located on the northeast corner of the project site and is not included as part of the project. The project site has a total of five parking lots, providing 169 parking stalls. An internal roadway connects three of the parking lots, and the two other parking lots are accessible via two separate ingress-egress driveways. The project site also contains paved walkways and landscaping throughout (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph with Photo Locations, and Figure 4, Project Site Photographs).
2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
The project site is bounded by Quarry Street, residential homes, and the Corona Community Veterinary Hospital to the north; Rimpau Avenue and the Municipal Plunge to the east; East 6th Street and Kress Court to the south; and Grand Boulevard, residential uses, an auto shop, and commercial uses to the west. Across Quarry Street are single-family homes and Circle City Towing to the north. To the east across Rimpau Avenue is a mobile home park, Advance Iron Concepts, and a vacant lot. Across East 6th Street are multi-family homes,
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
a pawn shop, a car dealership, and a NAPA Auto Parts Store. Across East Grand Boulevard are restaurants and residential uses (see Figure 5, Surrounding Uses Photographs).
The properties surrounding the project site have these zoning designations:
North. Single family residential (SF), low density multiple family residential (R2), commercial (GC), and commercial/office (BP)
East. BP, BP (Affordable Housing Overlay zone [AHO]), multiple-family residential (MF1) South. GC, commercial (TC), high density residential (R3) West. Commercial/Office (RO), SF and TC (Corona 2024a) The general plan land use designations of the surrounding uses are:
North. Single-family residential (SFR), commercial (C), and Commercial office (CP) East. SFR, Light Indusial (LI), multiple-family residential (MFR), and C South. C, Vacant (VC), CP, MFR, and Quasi-Public (QP), and MFR. West. MFR and C
San Bernardino Count
Lake Mat hew s
0 3
Scale (Miles) Source: ESRI, 2022
Figure XX - Figure Title Here
1. Introduction
PROJECT NAME HERE
CITY OF PROJECT HERE
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDU M
So
CITY OF CORONA
urce: Generated using ArcMap 2024.
0 Scale (Miles)
3 Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.
Project Site
Chino Hills
Corona
Yorba
Linda
Anaheim
Irvine Lake
Forest
County of Orange
County of Riverside
Fontana
Jurupa Valley
Chino
Eastvale
Riverside
Norco
Ontario
91 CALIFORNIA
15 91
CALIFORNIA
15 241
CALIFORNIA
71 CALIFORNIA
60 CALIFORNIA
County of
Los Angeles
County Boundary
City Boundary
60 CALIFORNIA
241
CALIFORNIA
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
0 2,000
Feet
Figure XX - Figure Title Here
1. Introduction
PROJECT NAME HERE
CITY OF PROJECT HERE
Source: ESRI, 2022
PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
0 Scale (Feet)
2,000
Project Boundary
Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.
91 CALIFORNIA
91 CALIFORNIA
15 15
City Boundary
Corona
Norco Norco Norco
Sampson Ave
E 10th St
E 6th St
Quarry St
Railroad St
E 8th St
N Joy St
S Main St
S Sheridan St
W Ontario Ave
Fullerton Ave
W Olive St
Magnolia Ave
Kellogg Ave
S Main St
Garreston Ave
Rimpau Ave
California Ave
Old Temescal Rd
River Rd
E Parkridge Ave
Temescal Wash
E Parkridge Ave
Cresta Rd
W Grand Blvd
CITY OF CORONA
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph with Photo Locations
Source: Nearmap 2024.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
0 Scale (Feet)
360 Project Boundary
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
E 6th St
Quarry St
La Costa Dr
E 3rd St
Rimpau
Ave
Arroya Ave
E Grand Ave
E 5th St
E 4th
St
Margarita Dr
Circle City Dr
E 7th St
Filbert St
Spruce St
Pine St
Cedar St
Fullerton Ave
Park Ln
Portolla St
Gianni Dr
San Juan St
91 CALIFORNIA
Temescal Wash
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Photograph Location and Direction (18) 1
CITY OF CORONA
Construction Staging Area
1 9
3 4 5
2 8
6 7
10 13
14 15
16 11
12 17
18
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: PlaceWorks 2024.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
CITY OF CORONA
Figure 4 - Project Site Photographs
View 1: From the western end of the Park looking east to the YMCA on the project site.
View 2: From northwest of the City pool looking southeast to the City pool on the project site.
View 3: From the western portion of the Park looking northeast the park amphitheater, park restroom building, shade structures and park benches, on the project site.
View 5: Adjacent from the southern centrally located driveway looking north to the parking lot, shade canopy and the open park on the project site.
View 6: From the southern portion of the park looking west to a play structure on the project site.
View 7: From the south-eastern portion of the project site looking northeast to the skate park on the project site.
View 9: From the northeast of the project site looking south to the athletic basketball courts and open park space in the distance, on the project site.
View 10: From the northern driveway looking south to the parking lot and shade structures on the project site.
View 8: From Rimpau Avenue looking southwest to a graded parking lot and trees on the project site.
View 4: From the southern portion of the park looking northwest to the play structures and open park space on the project site.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: PlaceWorks 2024.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
Figure 5 - Surrounding Uses Photographs
View 11: From the southwestern parking lot on site, looking southwest to the commercial businesses, a residential home and
automobile mechanic shop.
View 12: From the southwestern driveway of the project site looking west to East 6th Street to the commercial uses.
View 13: From the southern centrally located driveway of the project site looking south to the commercial uses across East 6th Street.
View 15: From the southeast of the project site looking northeast to the municipal plunge, and residential uses and industrial uses across Rimpau Avenue.
View 16: From the northeast corner of the project site looking northwest to the residential uses across Quarry Street.
View 17: From the northwest corner of the project site looking north to the residential uses across Quarry Street.
View 18: From the western end of the project site looking northwest to the residential uses across East Grand Boulevard and the State Route 91 in the distance.
View 14: From the southeast corner of the project site looking southeast to the commercial uses across East 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue.
CITY OF CORONA
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 19
3. Project Description
3.1 APPROVED PROJECT
The Approved Project is described in the City of Corona’s General Plan Technical Update EIR, which was certified on June 3, 2020. The General Plan is the City’s policy and implementation framework that guides the long-term growth and improvement of Corona for the next 20 or more years. Under the Approved Project in the General Plan, the project site is zoned Parks with a land use designation as Open Space Recreational, which allows for park and recreational uses. Therefore, the Approved Project assumed that the project site would serve as a park and recreational use.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site encompasses approximately 19.6 acres and is located at the northwest corner of East 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue in the City of Corona. The project site currently operates as Corona City Park and includes open fields, basketball courts, paved play areas, playground structures, parking lots, internal circulation routes, a skate park, pool buildings, and a YMCA facility. The proposed project would redevelop Corona City Park with a new aquatics center in the northeastern portion of the site; a new parking lot in the southeastern portion of the site; a centrally located community lawn (“Community Canvas”) with a community center building to the east; a new playground structure replacing the existing playground and a new splash pad to the west of the community lawn; replacement restrooms and parking areas on the western portion of the site; and relocated basketball courts with a new pump track surrounding them. An additional parking lot would be located in the northwestern portion of the site. The proposed project would also include new walkways and ornamental landscaping throughout the project site (see Figure 6, Overall Site Plan).
3.2.1 Community Center and Aquatics Center
The new 64,323-square-foot community center would be located on the eastern portion of the park and would include lobby space with a 2,200-square-foot check-in area, permitting access to four individual spaces; an approximately 12,000 square-foot Banquet Space; an approximately 28,000-square-foot fitness center; a 6,700-square-foot office and learning space, and a 43,000-square foot aquatic center (see Figure 7, Community Center and Aquatics Center Site Plan).
The Banquet space would include a 7,591-square-foot banquet hall with a 1,121-square-foot kitchen, 1,162-square-foot event storage, and a 2,700-square-foot outdoor banquet court. The fitness center would include a 20,162-square-foot gymnasium with bleachers, 935-square-foot gym storage rooms, a 3,243-squarefoot fitness room, a 1,882-square-foot group fitness room, an outdoor fitness area, locker rooms, and restrooms. The office and learning spaces would include a 1,546-square-foot classroom, a 2,194-square-foot conference room, a 1,049-square-foot game room, 1,400 square feet of administrative space with open offices, private office, meeting room, breakroom, public restrooms, and additional storage. The community center
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
would be open to the public Monday through Sunday, from 7:00 a.m./8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m./9:00 p.m., depending on the time of year.
To the east of the community center, the proposed aquatics center service building is approximately 3,785 square feet and consists of pool maintenance rooms, electrical rooms, restrooms, a training room and office located on the northwest portion of the aquatic center. South of the aquatic center building, the project would include a 8,405-square-foot recreational pool and spa that include “lazy river” recreation equipment and water slides, a 6,215-square-foot competition sports pool, four diving boards, large shade structures, outdoor showers, and various pool furniture. The aquatics center would be open to the public Monday through Sunday, from 7:00 a.m./8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m./9:00 p.m., depending on the time of year.
3.2.2 Community Canvas
Centrally located within the project site and directly west of the community center, the Community Canvas would serve as a versatile grass field surrounded by a broad walkway and a limited-access vehicle route. The space would accommodate a range of events, with the open field providing flexibility for temporary setups such as a portable stage or movie screen for community concerts and movie nights. Vehicle access along the designated route would be restricted to specific times and limited to vendors and maintenance vehicles.
Together, the Community Canvas and the community center—with its banquet hall—would support a variety of public and private events at Corona City Park while the park remains open to the public and for authorized community-organized activities.
3.2.3 Playground, Fitness, and Sports Courts
The northwest portion of the project site contains a swing set and two playgrounds with play structures—one designed for children aged 2 to 5 years and the other for children aged 5 to 12 years. Adjacent to the playgrounds are covered picnic structures, a volleyball court, and a parking lot. South of the playgrounds, a new splash pad would be developed along with new restroom facilities with outdoor showers. The westernmost area of the project site includes two basketball courts, a skate park and pump track, and two parking lots to the north and south. Walkways are provided throughout the project site.
3.2.4 Event Scheduling
The proposed project would provide a venue for new community-based events and accommodate the relocation of existing events currently held at other locations throughout the City.
@@
I I
w····, j�jcLI� L ���$
I � POCX.11.0G�f!'
POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDING ELEVATION- HEIGHT D1AGRA.M
1 �� �3
________ _ ______________ J
_io-=,�
_ _ _ �Frill 1
1 � . • _. 1
1 � 1
1 1t7C!J:rr !l __ -"""'-'-�
COMMUNIT'I BUILDING ELEVATION· HEIGHT DIA
� 2
�-----SCfSERVICf&GEMERATORYAR:D
roomoo
U9'SF
�----EXISTlf3TMIISfORMER&GfNWTOR.NJ.C.
PROPOSEDPOCl.EOOFMENTllJU>ING
roomoo
"'""
CONSTRt.lCOONm>EVB
Z,927Sf
R
3101W
lOSAN
Ptt32
fAX:323
\- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--� I
I
. ',-:-i r.1-,.--,.
,
,
TOTAl.lOTAREA:
919,5111Sf
3 0'-<TMll<Ol'EN
Sl'ACEl'MOt<TN3£
OOtfJSLltE
I
I
C
CO
PA
930
CO
L
;,· ·-- � . ,,Jc I 1' ,
-
"""""'"" �-\'_'.:_• -./; I -- Q.ffiiSTREET -- --
-
-
-
-
- -- -- - ---
-
- _J
1~-1-·1-1··-1 -1 ;��··
_,_�_--:
"" :·" -···r··- 10111
��
8UWltOHEOHTAl.l.OY.ti>(TABI.ES0<.3t ll!i'.0- BUWltOHEOHTP!IOf'OSEO 45'-10- l'OOl.l0U ... UITllaOIIIG
8\JllOINGOCo:JPAHCY:S-1
���:�::i:�ABI.EW'-3
) 1T.0-
SlOIIESIIIJO,/EGIIACEMJ.JJWEO(lOl,",Sw/�EANCMOSE) STOllleSAeQ-JEGRACE.AlUN'IEO(lOl. <1.S) - - STOIIIESA8Q-IEGRACE.P!IOl'OS€D STOIIESAIIO','EORAOEP!IOPOSEO 1 I
ITYP
l.s€PAAATW�•�S�� AU.OWABI.ENV.fACTO!l(500!l,S1� .<,•a&,oooSfli,•- A.•$1,000•(1$,,X,<.751
B
AR
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
110
Figure 6 - Overall Site Plan
Source: RIOS 2025.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
Sports/Fitness Skate Park
Splash Pad
Playground
Community Canvas
Community Center
Aquatics Center
Restroom Building
CITY OF CORONA
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: RIOS 2025.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
80 Figure 7 - Community Center and Aquatics Center Site Plan
CITY OF CORONA
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY PARK REVITL ALIZATIO N PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
June 2026 Page 25
3.2.4.1 REGULARLY OCCURING EVENTS
The proposed project would include the weekly hosting of a Farmers Market, which is currently held at the Corona Mall parking lot and would be relocated to the project site. The Farmers Market would feature vendors and food trucks and attract approximately 1,000 visitors. In addition, the proposed project would host a bi-monthly lunchtime food truck event on weekdays, which would include multiple food trucks located within the project site and accommodate approximately 2,000 visitors. See Table 1, Corona City Park Regularly Occurring Events Calendar.
Table 1 Corona City Park Regular Occurring Events Calendar Event Frequency Event
Existing or New
Event Current Event Location Proposed Number of Attendees Weekly Farmers Market Existing Corona City Mall 1,000
Bi-monthly Lunchtime Food Truck New - 2,000
3.2.4.2 ANNUAL EVENT CALENDAR
The proposed project would accommodate various community events at the project site. Approximately 20 existing events currently held at other locations throughout the City would be relocated to the project site, and 7 new events would be introduced. Future events at the project site would not exceed the capacity currently accommodated at the site. A summary of proposed and relocated events is provided in Table 2, Corona City Park Annual Event Calendar.
Table 2 Corona City Park Annual Event Calendar
Event Schedule Event
Existing or New
Event Current Event Location Proposed Number of Attendees January Health Fair Existing Corona Community
Center
1,000
February Lunar New Year New - 1,000
Spring 5K Event or Street
Closure (Ex. Ciclavia)
New - 5,000
March Spring Festival New - 5,000
April Fentanyl Kills
Remembrance Walk
Existing Santana Park 1,000
Day of the Child Festival Existing Corona City Park 5,000 May Cinco de Mayo Festival &
Parade
Existing Corona City Park 2,000-5,000
Relay for Life, 2-Day
Event
Existing Santana Park 2,000
Corona Rotary
Lobsterfest
Existing City Hall Lawn 1,000
June Juneteenth New - 1,000
July Movies in the Park W1 Existing Various City Parks (4) 500 Movies in the Park W2 Existing Various City Parks (4) 500 Movies in the Park W3 Existing Various City Parks (4) 500
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
Table 2 Corona City Park Annual Event Calendar
Event Schedule Event
Existing or New
Event Current Event Location Proposed Number of Attendees Summer Concerts W1 Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn & 6th Street
2,500
Summer Concerts W2 Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn & 6th Street
2,500
Summer Concerts W3 Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn & 6th Street
2,500
August National Night Out Existing Historic Civic Center Hall Lawn
2,500
Movies in the Park W4 Existing Various City Parks (4) 500 Movies in the Park W5 Existing Various City Parks (4) 500 Summer Concerts W4 Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn & 6th Street
2,500
Summer Concerts W5 Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn & 6th Street
2,500
September Mexican Independence
Day Mariachi Concert
New - 1,000
October Red Ribbon Week
Festival
Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn
1,000
Step Up for Safety 5k Existing Santana Park 1,000
Halloweekend Existing Historic Civic Center
Lawn
5,000
Día de los Muertos New Historic Civic Center
Lawn (2024)
2,000
November Turkey Trot New - 5,000
December Kids, Cops, and Holiday
Magic
City Hall Lawn 2,000
3.2.5 Pedestrian Access, and Vehicular Parking
The proposed project would include a network of walkways connecting all proposed park features and amenities. The project would continue to utilize the existing surrounding roadways, including East 6th Street, Rimpau Avenue, Quarry Street, and East Grand Boulevard. These streets contain sidewalks and crosswalks that provide pedestrian access to the park. Public transit access to the project site is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Bus Route 1 and the westbound Red Line. Bicycle access is available via bike lanes along the north and south sides of East 6th Street in both directions. The proposed project includes a total of 325 parking stalls, consisting of 153 new stalls in the Main Parking Lot located at the corner of East 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue; 67 stalls in the North Lot & Quarry Street; 41 stalls in the West Quarry Parking Lot; and 64 stalls in the Kress Court Parking Lot. Additional on-street parking is available along Quarry Street. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via six access points: one ingress/egress point on Rimpau Avenue, two on Quarry Street, one on East Grand Boulevard, and two on East 6th Street.
CITY PARK REVITL ALIZATIO N PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
June 2026 Page 27
3.2.6 Emergency Access
The proposed fire lane would be approximately 28 feet wide and accessible via the newly constructed promenade and market plaza. This paved access route would extend through the central portion of the project site, connecting East 6th Street to Quarry Street.
3.2.7 Project Construction and Phasing
Project development is estimated to take approximately 36 months to complete, extending from December 2026 to December 2029. Construction of the proposed project would occur in one phase. Construction would be permitted to occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm and on Saturdays from 9:00 am to 8:00 pm, with no work on Sundays or legal holidays. Grading activities would be limited to 8 hours/day, 5 days/week (or a total of 40 hours per week). Construction activities would include grading, site clearing, demolition, site preparation, and building construction. During construction, the project site would be enclosed with privacy fencing to ensure the safety of workers and the public. The fencing would also help minimize visual disturbances and limit dust and debris from spreading to adjacent streets and properties, preserving the character and aesthetics of the surrounding area throughout the construction period.
3.2.7.1 CONSTRUCTION STAGING
A City-owned parcel located at 411 Rimpau Avenue (APN 117-331-004) adjacent to the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The parcel has been identified as a potential staging area to support construction activities of the proposed project. The staging area would accommodate approximately three construction trailers for use by the City/construction manager, general contractor, and electrical subcontractor, as well as several storage containers for construction materials and equipment.
3.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has the approval authority over the proposed project.
Discretionary actions for the proposed project would include: (1) certification of the environmental document and (2) approval of the proposed project.
3.3.1 Other Agency Action Requested
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has the approval authority over the proposed project. The City would require approval and/or coordination from the following agencies to implement the proposed project. Kizh Nation: Tribal agreement for tribal monitoring prior to grading. SoCal Edison: Confirmation of existing electrical facilities, capacity, and any required upgrades. The Gas Co: Confirmation of gas service availability and capacity. Public Utilities: Confirmation of potable water and sanitary sewer capacity.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
3. Project Description
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: Enrollment under the Statewide Construction Stormwater Permit.
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health: Approval of warming kitchen and aquatics center.
June 2026 Page 29
4. Environmental Checklist
4.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Corona City Park Revitalization Project (Addendum to the City of Corona’s General Plan Update - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2018081039)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Corona
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel McLure, CIP Supervisor
951.736.2400
4. Project Location:
The project site is located at 930 East 6th Street in the City of Corona, which is in the northwestern corner of Riverside County. The project site is 19.6 acres and consists of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 117-310-001-2 and 117-301-010-2. The project site is bounded by Quarry Street to the north, Rimpau Avenue to the east, East 6th Street to the south, and Grand Boulevard to the west.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Corona
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, California 92882
6. General Plan Designation: Parks and Open Space Recreational (OS-R)
7. Zoning: Parks (P)
8. Description of Project:
The approximately 19.6-acre project site, at the northwest corner of East 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue, currently operates as Corona City Park and includes fields, courts, playgrounds, parking areas, circulation routes, a skate park, pool buildings, and a YMCA facility. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a new aquatics center (northeast), a new southeastern parking lot, a centrally located “Community Canvas” lawn with an adjacent community center, a new playground and splash pad, replacement restrooms and western parking areas, and relocated basketball courts with a surrounding pump track. An additional parking lot would be added in the northwest. The proposed project also includes new walkways and ornamental landscaping throughout the project site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is bounded by Quarry Street, residential uses, and the Corona Community Veterinary Hospital to the north; Rimpau Avenue and the Municipal Plunge to the east; East 6th Street and Kress Court
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
4. Environmental Checklist
to the south; and Grand Boulevard, residential uses, an auto shop, and other commercial uses to the west.
Across Quarry Street are single-family homes and Circle City Towing. East of Rimpau Avenue are a mobile home park, Advance Iron Concepts, and a vacant lot. Across East 6th Street are multi-family homes, a pawn shop, a car dealership, and a NAPA Auto Parts store. Across East Grand Boulevard are restaurants and residential uses. Surrounding zoning includes Single-Family Residential (SF), Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (R2), General Commercial (GC), and Commercial/Office (BP) to the north; BP, BP (Affordable Housing Overlay zone [AHO]), and Multi-Family Residential (MF1) to the east; GC, Town Center (TC), and High-Density Residential (R3) to the south; and Residential Office (RO), SF, and TC to the west (Corona 2024a). The surrounding General Plan designations include Single-Family Residential (SFR), Commercial (C), and Commercial Office (CP) to the north; SFR, Light Industrial (LI), Multiple-Family Residential (MFR), and C to the east; C, Vacant (VC), CP, MFR, and Quasi-Public (QP) to the south; and MFR and C to the west.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):
Local Agencies
• Riverside County Fire Department: Approval of the newly constructed fire lane and confirmation of emergency access compliance.
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: Coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and review of stormwater compliance measures.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?:
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Tribal consultation was conducted as part of the Approved Project’s environmental analysis pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. Additionally, the notification and consultation requirements pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1 do not apply to the proposed project because this is an Addendum to the 2020 Certified EIR. Therefore, further tribal consultation is not required.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
4. Environmental Checklist
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
4. Environmental Checklist
June 2026 Page 33
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
4. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2026 Page 35
5. Environmental Analysis
This chapter provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. Each section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the 2020 Certified EIR and discusses the following three conditions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
Condition 1. Whether or not the proposed project represents a substantial change that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Condition 2. Whether or not substantial changes in the circumstances under which the proposed project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
Condition 3. If new information shows that the proposed project would have one or more new significant effects; that significant effects would be substantially more severe than previously described; that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would be feasible and substantially reduce impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them; or that new or previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more project impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them.
If none of the above conditions are met, the analysis identifies where impacts of the proposed project would not require major revisions to the 2023 Certified EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a).
5.1 AESTHETICS
5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding aesthetics.
Scenic Vistas or Resources Along a State Scenic Highway Visual resources in the City and sphere of influence (SOI) include mountain views, prominent scenic views, scenic vistas, and scenic resources. The approved land use plan under the General Plan would allow for development in currently undeveloped parcels and intensification of existing uses along local scenic corridors.
However, land use designations would remain the same, and existing conditions in residential areas adjacent to
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
scenic vistas and resources would remain unchanged. Future projects in the Hillside District would be required to develop and implement land use controls that preserve significant visual resources. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with the City’s municipal code, Residential and Industrial Development Design Guidelines (including specific plan guidelines), and the General Plan goals and policies.
The General Plan would continue to preserve open space areas, parks, and agricultural lands that provide views of scenic vistas. Therefore, vistas and scenic resources in and surrounding the City would not be adversely impacted. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Visual Character and Quality
Buildout of the approved land use plan under the General Plan would alter the existing visual appearance of the City with the development of undeveloped parcels and intensification of existing uses. The City of Corona is characterized by its diversity of residential neighborhoods: which includes historic neighborhoods, older neighborhoods, new neighborhoods, and industrial and commercial areas within the City. Future development would be required to comply with existing regulations that assist in maintaining the City’s character, including the City’s residential and industrial development design guidelines, industrial landscape design guidelines, the policies of the Community Design Element, and Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the Corona Municipal Code.
Although new developments would alter the visual appearance of the City, the Approved Project would not degrade Corona’s visual character or quality with compliance to the City’s existing regulations and General Plan policies. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Light and Glare
Sources of light and glare in the City include building lighting (interior and exterior), security lighting, sign illumination, ballfield lighting, and parking-area lighting. These sources are mostly associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses and the larger community parks in the more developed areas of the City. Future development under the General Plan would occur in undeveloped parcels and areas designated for intensification of existing uses, which would introduce new sources of light and glare. However, future development would be required to comply with residential, commercial, and industrial landscape design guidelines, which consider accent lighting and lighting in the City’s landscape assessment districts, Chapter 17.76 and Chapter 17.861 of the City’s Zoning Code, and General Plan policies to minimize any potential spillover associated with light and glare. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
1 Chapter 17.76 and Chapter 17.86 of the City’s Zoning Code, as referenced in the 2020 Certified EIR, have since been updated to Chapter 17.84 in the current Zoning Code as noted in the analysis provided below.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 37
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring Major
Revisions
Condition 2:
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The City of Corona General Plan describes scenic vistas as points where wide-open views of natural features dominate the visual image of the City. The City contains both prominent scenic vistas and scenic corridors defined as locally important scenic vistas. Significant vistas in the City include: the Prado Basin views from Sierra del Oro, which encompass the basin on the south and canyon areas on the west; the view south to the Santa Ana Mountains from the I-15/SR-91 freeway interchange; the southern view of the San Bernardino foothills from major north-south streets south of Ontario Avenue; the views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the higher elevations south of Ontario Avenue; and Eagle Glen. Scenic corridors (local, State, and county eligible scenic highways) include: Grand Boulevard; Main Street, from 3rd Street to the southern terminus; Ontario Avenue, from Mangular to State Street; Chase Drive from Foothill Parkway to Spring Meadows Drive; Foothill Parkway, from Paseo Grande to Bedford Canyon Road; Magnolia, from Ontario Ave to Rimpau Avenue; Green River Road, from SR-91 to Palisades Drive; Palisades Drive, from Green River to Serfas Club Drive; Eagle Glen Parkway, from I-15 to southern terminus; and SR-71, SR-91, I-15 and Cajalco Road, respectively.
The project site is an existing park and will continue to operate as a park within an urbanized area, and views surrounding the project site are largely constrained by residential and commercial development, landscaping, and vegetation. There are several scenic vistas within the City that are located near the project site, including SR-91, I-15, I-15/SR-91 freeway interchange, and Main Street, which are approximately 0.20 miles, 0.40 miles,
0.40 miles, and 0.50 miles away, respectively. SR-91 offers views of the Santa Ana Canyon to the west and
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
Norco/Corona Hills to the northeast. The project site is south of SR-91 and would not hinder any views of scenic vistas from SR-91. I-15 offers views of Temescal Valley to the south. The project site is west of the I15 and would not affect views of this scenic vista. Main Street provides views of the City’s historic core, the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and south, and the low foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east.
The project site is approximately 0.50 miles west of Main Street; however, due to the existing commercial and residential development, the proposed project would not be visible from Main Street and would not affect the scenic vista. Grand Boulevard is a City-designated scenic vista that bounds the project site to the west and provides views of the City’s historic core, estates, and mature trees. The mature trees on the project site are not prominently visible from Grand Boulevard due to surrounding development blocking views of the project site and mature trees. The proposed project would remove 275 and relocate 59 ornamental trees; however, 46 mature trees will remain in place with tree protection fencing, to maintain the historic character of the site.
Further, the project site along Grand Boulevard includes the existing YMCA buildings and trees. The proposed project would remove the existing YMCA, replant trees, and introduce new park facilities. The proposed project would allow for better views into the project site from Grand Boulevard and would not negatively impact views from Grand Boulevard. The proposed project would be consistent with Goal CD-6 of the General Plan, to develop and implement land use controls that preserve significant visual resources from potential loss or disruption (Policies CD-6.1 through CD-6.4), and Goal CD-7, maintain, establish, develop, and protect the City’s highways and corridors for scenic purposes (Policies CD-7.1 through CD-7.3). The project site will continue to operate as a park and the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The nearest officially State-designated scenic highway to the project site is a portion of SR-91 near the City of Anaheim, approximately 12.20 miles west of the project site (Caltrans 2024). Due to the distance, topography, and intervening development, the project site is not visible from SR-91. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, no scenic resources would be damaged, and no impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. For an incorporated city, “urbanized area” means the city, either by itself or in combination with two contiguous incorporated cities, has a population of at least 100,000 persons. The City of Corona has an
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 39
estimated population of 160,238 people (US Census 2023). Therefore, the project site is in an urbanized area as defined by Public Resources Code 21071.
The proposed project would revitalize the existing Corona City Park and would be consistent with the existing land use designation (OS-R) and a zoning designation (P) of the project site (Corona 2024a). Because the proposed project would serve similar uses and its development would be comparable to or lower in height than surrounding structures, it would not degrade the visual character or quality of public views in the area. The proposed project would be consistent with Corona General Plan community design policies, including but not limited to: Goal CD-2, entries that are well defined by signage, landscaping, lighting, and other visual landmarks that provide a clear sense of arrival into and identity for the City of Corona and Goal CD-6, develop and implement land use controls that preserve significant visual resources from potential loss or disruption.
Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project.
Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Lighting effects are associated with the evening and nighttime use of artificial light. Excessive light and/or glare can impair vision, cause annoyance, affect sleep patterns, and generate safety hazards when experienced by drivers. Residences and natural outdoor spaces are considered light sensitive since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to disturbance by bright light sources, and wildlife’s natural movements and activities can be disrupted. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. With respect to lighting, the degree of illumination may vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, height of the light source, presence of barriers or obstructions, type of light source, and weather conditions.
Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light on surfaces that reflect the light, such as highly polished surfaces (e.g., glass, automobiles, and reflective materials) and lightcolored surfaces (e.g., surfaces of buildings and structures). Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation experienced by a person as they look directly into the light source of a luminaire.
Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with buildings with exterior façades largely or entirely composed of highly reflective glass. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources such as automobile headlights. Daytime glare can also be generated by light reflecting off passing or parked cars. Glare generation is typically related to either moving vehicles or sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at certain times of the day and year. Excessive glare not only impedes visibility but also increases the ambient heat reflectivity in a given area. The adjacent residences are glare-sensitive uses.
For the purposes of this analysis, a standard of 0.9 foot-candle (fc) was used for a significance determination because it sets the standard below the level of typical street lights (1.0 to 5.0 fc) and below twilight levels (1.0 fc),
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
which ensures that bedrooms are not subjected to sleep-depriving light intrusion. Additionally, industry best practices recommend that exterior lighting levels be further reduced to 0.2 fc or less after curfew hours to further reduce impacts on human circadian rhythms, nighttime wildlife activity, and general skyglow (IDA 2020).
Existing on-site sources of light are minimal and include security lighting, lampposts, other park facilities outdoor lighting, and vehicle headlights. Surrounding sources of light include residential lighting (such as light emanating from windows, outdoor lighting on private property, and security lighting), streetlights, car lights, and lights associated with the surrounding commercial uses. The project site is generally unlit except for nighttime lighting associated with the uses on site, such as security lighting. Existing sources of glare include light reflecting off of vehicles traveling on the public rights-of-way, parked in parking lots and along public rights-of-way, and light-colored building materials.
The buildout of the proposed project would not significantly increase the sources of light and glare in the area; however, the proposed project would result in more reflective surfaces compared to existing conditions on the project site. The existing Corona City Park includes sidewalk and parking lot lighting, as well as lighting around the skate park, basketball and tennis courts, open field, and exterior building areas. The proposed project would provide similar lighting features, including illumination around the community canvas, skate park, and sports fitness area, as well as exterior building and parking lot lighting. Since the proposed project is more built out than the existing park and includes more recreational features, nighttime lighting is expected to increase within the project site.
The Musco lighting plans measure fc lighting measurements at the project site boundary. As shown in Figure 8, Horizontal Light Levels at Property Line, the highest light level at the boundary is 0.04 fc, which is below the 0.9 fc threshold of significance and below the 0.2 fc target for after curfew. Since the proposed lights allow the lamps to be directed down to the ground and not at a right angle across the park, and the nearest residential properties are located beyond the project site boundary to the north, west, south, and east, so no residential properties will experience measurable increase in lighting as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Additionally, the proposed community center and various park lighting would be shielded and directed away from residential and sensitive uses surrounding the project site. The proposed project would also be consistent with Corona General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to policy HC-2.4: Ensure that individuals, neighborhoods, and businesses clearly understand the potential for adverse pollution, noise, odor, vibration, lighting and glare, and the effects of toxic materials or emissions when generating uses are proposed near them.
The proposed project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6), Chapter 17.84 of the City’s Zoning Code, Lighting Performance Standards (formerly Chapters 17.76 and 17.86 under the 2020 Certified EIR), and applicable General Plan policies would minimize potential spillover effects associated with light and glare. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur.
No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
INEERED DESIGN BDLhFil#182609A 18M25
P1
P2 P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
L4
L1
L2
L3
L5
BB1 BB2
SK4
SK3
SK1
SK2
0.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 200
0' 200' 400'
structure utilizes a back-to-back mounting configuration ve Grade level relative to the field
Pole location(s) dimensions are relative
to 0,0 reference point(s)
Source: MUSCO 2025.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
160
Figure 8 - Horizontal Light Levels at Property Line
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 Equipment List For Areas Shown
Pole Luminaires
QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE
ELEVATION
ABOVE GRADE
LEVEL LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY/POLE THISGRID
OTHER
GRIDS
2 BB1-BB2 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 4/2* 6 0
3 L1-L2
L5 60' - 60' TLC-LED-1200 1 1 0
60' TLC-LED-900 3 3 0
1 L3 60' - 60' TLC-LED-1200 1 1 0
60' TLC-LED-900 4 4 0
1 L4 60' - 60' TLC-LED-900 5 5 0
4 P1-P4 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 3 3 0
4 P5-P8 50' - 50' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
4 SK1-SK4 40' - 40' TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
19 Totals 62 62 0
*This structure utilizes a back-to-back mounting configuration *Above Grade level relative to the field
City Park Ath
Corona, CA
Grid Summary Na
Spac
Heig
Illumination Summ
Scan Avera
Maxim
Minimu
No. of Poi
LUMINAIRE INFORMATI
Applied Circu
No. of Luminai
Total Lo
Guaranteed Performance
above is guaranteed per y
document.
Field Measurements: In
from computer-calculated
in accordance with IESNA
Electrical System Require
Draw Chart and/or the "
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirement
nominal voltage at line sid
located within 3 feet (1m
P1
P2 P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
L4
L1
L2
L3
BB1 BB2
SK4
SK3
SK1
SK2
.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Luminaires
LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY/POLE THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
TLC-LED-550 4/2* 6 0
TLC-LED-1200 1 1 0
TLC-LED-900 3 3 0
TLC-LED-1200 1 1 0
TLC-LED-900 4 4 0
TLC-LED-900 5 5 0
TLC-LED-550 3 3 0
TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
TLC-LED-550 2 2 0
62 62 0
onfiguration
City Park Athletic Fields
Corona, CA
Grid Summary Name: Spill @ 3ft.
Spacing: 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade
Illumination Summary INITIAL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Entire Grid
Scan Average: 0.0012
Maximum: 0.04
Minimum: 0.00
CU: 0.00
No. of Points: 176
LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A,B,C,D,E,F
No. of Luminaires: 62
Total Load: 42.12 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described
above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty
document.
Field Measurements: Individual field measurements may vary from computer-calculated predictions and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
P4
P5
P6
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 00
City Park Athletic Fields
Corona, CA
Grid Summary Name: Spill @ 3ft.
Spacing: 30.0'
Height: 3.0' above grade
Illumination Summary INITIAL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Entire Grid
Scan Average: 0.0012
Maximum: 0.04
Minimum: 0.00
CU: 0.00
No. of Points: 176
LUMINAIRE INFORMATION
Applied Circuits: A,B,C,D,E,F
No. of Luminaires: 62
Total Load: 42.12 kW
Guaranteed Performance: The ILLUMINATION described
above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty
document.
Field Measurements: Individual field measurements may vary from computer-calculated predictions and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume ± 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
0.0 0.0
0.0 Pole location(s) dimensions are relative to 0,0 reference point(s) E 6th St
Quarry St
E Grand Ave
Rimpau Ave
Arroya
Ave
E 5th St
Project Boundary
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 43
5.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to aesthetics were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that no mitigation measures were feasible, and the Approved Project resulted in significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
Farmland
Implementation of the General Plan would result in approximately 7,591 acres, or 88 percent, of farmland in the City and SOI would be converted to non-agricultural uses. However, agricultural uses would continue to be permitted if the zoning permits agricultural uses. The Approved Project would not change the land use designations, density, or intensity levels beyond what is currently designated within the 2004 General Plan, and all existing farmlands would remain for agricultural uses and would not result in the conversion or zoning of Farmland to nonagricultural development. Development of the General Plan would convert farmland with nonagricultural land use designations to nonagricultural use. The associated loss of agricultural production was determined to result in a significant impact.
Williamson Act
On February 22, 2006, the Williamson Act contract for a preserve in the City was terminated, and there are currently no Williamson Act contracts in the City. Implementation of the General Plan would result in a loss of 8 acres within the SOI, and 323 acres of agricultural preserves in the SOI would remain. Despite there being no Williamson Acts contract land within the City, there is Williamson Act contract land in the SOI; therefore the loss of 8 acres in the SOI was determined to result in a significant impact on agriculture in the region.
Forestland and Timberland
According to CAL FIRE, there are no current or planned fixed commercial timber operations, and there are no timber production zones in the City of Corona or its SOI. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses. Portions of the City and SOI contain woodland and forest vegetation, predominantly in the eastern and western peripheries of the project area. The General Plan would not impact potential forestland in these areas of the City or SOI, and implantation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts to forest resources. Development in the City and SOI would not result in the loss or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses; and the Approved Project would not change land use designations, densities, or intensities; therefore, the Approved Project would not rezone forestland to non-forest use. With adherence to the General Plan, the Approved Project’s impacts were determined to be less than significant.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the proposed project:
Condition 1:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) 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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) 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?
X
a) 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? No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program produces maps and statistical data for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 45
status and is divided into five categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, and Grazing Land. The best quality land is Prime Farmland (CDC 2024).
Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Unique Farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops.
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site and surrounding area are mapped as ‘Urban and Built-up Land’ and do not contain any farmlands nearby, consistent with Figure ER-7, Agricultural Resources, of the Corona General Plan (CDC 2024; Corona 2020). The proposed project would be developed within the confines of the project site, which is currently developed as a park and is surrounded by residential and commercial development. Thus, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur.
No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is developed with an existing park, which has a zoning designation of Parks (P) and a land use designation of Parks and Open Space Recreational (OS-R) (Corona 2024a). The project site is developed with various parking lots, playgrounds and play equipment, basketball courts, a tennis court, a pool, an amphitheater, shade structures with tables and benches, a skate park, ornamental landscaping, and open park spaces. Since the proposed project is consistent with the existing uses at the project site and zoning, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately owned land for agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site or in the area (CDC 2022). Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site has a zoning designation of Parks (P) and a land use designation of Parks and Open Space Recreational (OS-R) (Corona 2024a). The project site is developed with an existing public park.
No forested land or timberland exists on-site of the vicinity of the project site. Further, the project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forestland or timberland. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is developed with an existing park and in an urbanized area of the city, and no significant forest land uses are present onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Development of the proposed project would not require any changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
e) 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?
No Impact. The project site is developed with an existing park and in an urbanized area of the city, and no significant agricultural or forest land uses are present onsite nor in the immediate vicinity. Development of the proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses or forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
5.2.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 47
5.3 AIR QUALITY
5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that, even after the implementation of mitigation measures, the Approved Project resulted in significant impacts to air quality.
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The 2020 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, would reduce long-term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the Approved Project. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures were available that would reduce operation and construction impacts to below a significant level.
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
The 2020 Certified EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and would contribute to known health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. Construction activities and long-term operation associated with the buildout of the Approved Project resulted in air pollutant levels that exceeded South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction- and operation-related activities to the extent feasible.
However, emissions from the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the Approved Project would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds for construction and operation.
Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: TACs
Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Approved Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs). South Coast AQMD’s permitting process and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure TACs from individual development projects would be less than significant. However, implementation of the Approved Project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the SoCAB and result in a significant cumulative contribution in terms of health risk.
Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: Criteria Air Pollutants Buildout of the Approved Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce localized construction and operation emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the scale of future development and inclusion of industrial uses potentially close to existing sensitive receptors, the 2020 Certified EIR identified that buildout under the Approved Project would likely generate emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) and expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
Odor Impacts
The 2020 Certified EIR required an odor management plan in compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 for applicable projects, per Mitigation Measure AQ-4, which would ensure odor impacts were minimized to a less than significant level.
5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The 2020 Certified EIR identified that the Approved Project would conflict with South Coast AQMD's 2016 AQMP. Since the EIR was certified, South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP in December 2022 (South Coast AQMD 2022).
As discussed in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the renovation of the existing park would continue to serve the existing recreational needs of the City and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. Due to the nature of the proposed project, it would not result in a significant increase in employment in the City.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in short-term employment only and would end upon project completion.
Finally, as described in Section 5.3.2(b), the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in construction, or operation-phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP; and its implementation is not anticipated to result in new, or increase the severity of, impacts as it pertains to consistency with the 2022
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 49
AQMP when compared to the 2020 Certified EIR. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2020 Certified EIR identified that construction and operation of the Approved Project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Various goals and policies in the General Plan along with Mitigation Measure AQ-2 reduced impacts to the extent feasible; however, air quality was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Short-Term Regional Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Construction of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutants associated with construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Maximum daily construction emissions associated with the proposed project are provided in Table 3, Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions. Mitigation measures identified for the Approved Project and applicable to the proposed project were included in the modeling.
Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb/day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 2025
Site Preparation 1 15 30 <1 6 3
Grading 1 20 37 <1 3 1
Building Construction 1 10 18 <1 1 <1
Year 2026
Building Construction 1 10 17 <1 1 <1
Year 2027
Building Construction 1 10 17 <1 1 <1
Year 2028
Building Construction 1 10 17 <1 1 <1
Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating 8 17 30 <1 1 <1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions 8 20 37 <1 6 3
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb/day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
South Coast AQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. South Coast AQMD 2023. 1 Based on the preliminary information provided by the City. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast AQMD of construction equipment. 2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Also includes implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires use of Tier 4 interim construction equipment.
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, PM2.5 under the State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards (CARB 2024). According to South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact (South Coast AQMD 1993). As shown in Table 3, the maximum daily construction emissions for all criteria air pollutants would be less than their respective South Coast AQMD regional construction thresholds.
The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in magnitude of maximum daily air pollutant emissions compared to what was evaluated under the approved land uses in the 2020 Certified EIR. Overall, there would be no new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impact in the 2020 Certified EIR. Preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
Long-Term Regional Operational Impacts
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on-road vehicles). The proposed project involves redevelopment of Corona City Park. Typically, the primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by a project are mobile emissions from project-generated vehicle trips. Although programming for new events would increase vehicle trips to the project site, the proposed project would redistribute existing vehicle trips for existing events that are already occurring in the City and the future events would not have greater capacity than the current events. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate an increase in VMT in the City. Moreover, the 19.6-acre project site was evaluated as recreation under the approved land uses in the 2020 Certified EIR.
As shown in Table 4, Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions, it is anticipated that operation of the proposed project would result in emissions that would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional operation-phase significance thresholds.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 51
Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions
Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Emissions
Area 2 <1 3 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total 2 1 3 <1 <1 <1
South Coast AQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
Notes: lbs: Pounds. Highest winter or summer emissions report. Mobile trips not modeled since proposed project would redistribute existing vehicle trips in the City and not increase VMT.
As shown in Table 4, the proposed project would generate nominal operational criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds and emissions generated by the Approved Project. Additionally, emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the new community building and restrooms would meet the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards—future iterations of the California Building Standards Code are assumed to achieve greater energy efficiency performance. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in operation-phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR.
The proposed project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the 2020 Certified EIR. The proposed project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to cumulatively contributing to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant impact would occur under the proposed project. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.
Localized Impacts: LSTs
The 2020 Certified EIR identified that buildout under the Approved Project would likely generate emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD LSTs and expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations. Impacts to sensitive receptors were found to be significant and unavoidable.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
Operational LSTs
Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants include industrial (stationary sources) and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. The proposed project would involve redevelopment of Corona City Park. Thus, the type of land use proposed under the proposed project would not be expected to generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants. Overall, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increased severity of operation-related localized air quality impacts compared to the land uses considered in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Construction
LSTs are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare (South Coast AQMD 2008). They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The screening-level construction LSTs are based on the size of the project site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area (SRA). The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the single-family residences along Quarry Street to the north, mobile homes along Rimpau Avenue to the east, apartments along East 6th Street to the south, and single-family residences along East Grand Boulevard to the west.
Air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities would cause temporary increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 5, Localized Construction Emissions, shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during onsite construction activities compared with the South Coast AQMD’s screening-level LSTs, for sensitive receptors within 82 feet for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As shown in Table 3, the construction of the proposed project would not generate construction-related on-site emissions that would exceed the screening-level LSTs. Thus, project-related construction activities would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and localized air quality impacts from construction activities would be less than significant.
Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs/day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
South Coast AQMD 1.31 Acre LST 134 778 4.62 3.62
Building Construction 2025 9 15 0.11 0.11
Building Construction 2026 9 15 0.11 0.10
Building Construction 2027 9 15 0.10 0.09
Building Construction 2028 9 15 0.09 0.09
Building Construction 2028, Paving, and Architectural Coating 17 27 0.20 0.18 South Coast AQMD 3.50 Acre LST 220 1,353 9.00 6.50
Site Preparation 15 28 5.40 2.75
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 53
Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs/day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
South Coast AQMD 4.00 Acre LST 237 1,469 9.99 7.00
Grading 19 35 2.78 1.14
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Sources: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; South Coast AQMD 2008, 2011.
Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment are included in the analysis. Screening level LSTs are based on an 82 ft receptor for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 in SRA 22. 1 Where specific information for project-related construction activities or processes was not available modeling was based on CalEEMod defaults. These defaults are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast AQMD. 2 Includes fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, such as watering disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Also includes implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires use of Tier 4 interim construction equipment.
Development under the proposed project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the 2020 Certified EIR. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in developing a new area because the project site was considered as open space recreational usage under the 2020 Certified EIR. Thus, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction-related LST impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Localized Health Risk
The 2020 Certified EIR identified that operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Approved Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the SoCAB and result in a significant cumulative contribution in terms of health risk.
Operational Health Risk
The proposed project is not an industrial or warehousing type land use that would generate substantial TAC emissions. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of health risk impacts compared to that identified in the 2020 Certified EIR. Therefore, no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
Construction Health Risk
Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) adopted guidance for preparation of health risk assessments, which included the development of a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM over a 30-year time frame (OEHHA 2015). Currently, South Coast AQMD does not require the evaluation of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term project. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed in approximately 48 months, which would limit the exposure to offsite receptors. Furthermore, construction activities would not generate on-site exhaust emissions that would exceed the screening-level construction LSTs.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
As mentioned previously, improvements under the proposed project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the 2020 Certified EIR.
Thus, it is not anticipated that construction of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction-related health risk impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2020 Certified EIR. Therefore, no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
CO Hotspot
Buildout of the Approved Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate CO hotspots, and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant.
As described above, the proposed project would not result in an increase in vehicle trips or VMT in the City.
The proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations compared to the 2020 Certified EIR.
Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g., autobody shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.
The 2020 Certified EIR identified that odors generated within the City would not affect a substantial number of people with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of Corona City Park and would not fall within the objectionable odors land uses or generate odors different than the land uses accommodated under the 2020 Certified EIR.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and from volatile organic compounds associated with architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 55
be temporary and intermittent, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. In addition, land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be subject to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor-related nuisances.
Compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2020 Certified EIR, the types of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in similar construction odors. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the 2020 Certified EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to objectionable odors compared to the 2020 Certified EIR. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
5.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2020 Certified EIR and would be incorporated as part of the proposed project. Any modifications to these mitigation measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.
The following mitigation measure has been modified to reduce the proposed project's potentially significant construction-related LST impacts.
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Corona for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Corona Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Corona shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. The City of Corona shall require the following These identified measures to shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions shall include could include, but are not limited to:
Requiring Require the following fugitive-dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD’s Rule 403, such as:
Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. Applying water every four two and half hours to active soil-disturbing activities, or a minimum of three times per day.
CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
Using Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) Interim or stricter emission limits for all off-road construction equipment, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
Ensureing that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
Limiting on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 1525 miles per hour. Installing wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/ architectural-coatings/super-compliant-manf-list.pdf?sfvrsn=71.
The following mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project because operational emissions from the renovated park would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds.
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Corona for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Corona Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operationrelated air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Corona Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF CORONA
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 57
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Corona and Riverside Transit to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
The following mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project because the proposed project is not an industrial or warehouse project.
AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Corona, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Corona Planning Division for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by