Corona City Council
August 5, 2026

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.12.1 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 mineral resources.

The City is primarily underlain by MRZ-2 lands, that is, areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood of their presence. MRZ-2 lands with significant mineral deposits are designated by the California State Mining and Geology Board as of regional (multi-community) or statewide economic significance. The City of Corona does not contain mineral resources of local significance. In the City of Corona, mineral resource use must have a Mineral Resource (MR) Overlay, which requires a discretionary permit approved by the City Council. Implementation of the General Plan would result in residential and non-residential development that would preclude the extraction of approximately 100 acres of industrial minerals and 325 acres of construction aggregate in the City and SOI. The 2020 Certified EIR identified mitigation measures MIN-1 and MIN-2, however, buildout of the General Plan would result in a loss of available mineral resources in the City and SOI, a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Mineral Land Classification maps, the proposed project site is in MRZ-3, that is, an area containing mineral deposits whose significance cannot be evaluated from available data (CDC 1981). The closest mine in MRZ-2 is approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site (DOC 2024d). MRZ-2 are areas with adequate information indicating significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists (CDC 1981). The

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 117
project site is developed and used as a park. No mining activities currently exist on the project site or in immediate vicinity, and the project site is surrounded by urban development. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with the availability of known mineral resources, since the project site is not in an MRZ-1 or MRZ-2 and no mining activities exist on-site or in the vicinity of the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource valuable to the region and the state. 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 the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Based on the Mineral Land Classification map, the project site is within MRZ-3, which are areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data (CDC 1981). The project site is developed and used as a park. No mining activities currently exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, as the project site is surrounded by urban development. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with the availability of known mineral resources, since the project site is not in an MRZ-1 or MRZ-2, and no mining activities exist on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource delineated on a local plan. 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.

5.12.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2020 Certified EIR; however, none of the measures are applicable to the proposed project.

MIN-1 Prior to project approval for proposed development of properties classified as either regionally significant construction aggregate MRZ-2 or industrial minerals MRZ-2a, a mineral resource evaluation shall be conducted to determine the significance and economic viability of mining the resource. If development of a property would preclude future extraction of a significant mineral resource, in accordance with CEQA, the City shall make the appropriate findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to permitting development of the property.

MIN-2 Prior to approval of any project on lands classified as either regionally significant construction aggregate MRZ-2 or industrial mineral MRZ-2a, a report shall be prepared that analyzes the project’s value in relation to the mineral values found onsite. The analysis shall consider the importance of construction aggregate mineral resource onsite to the market region as a whole, and not just the importance of the resources found within the City and SOI. The report shall be submitted to the City, such that the City has adequate information to develop a statement of reasons for permitting the proposed land use to the California Department of

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board, for subsequent review, in accordance with SMARA, Article 2, Section 2762 and 2763 for areas designated of regional significance.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 119

5.13 NOISE

5.13.1 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 noise.

Construction Noise. The 2020 Certified EIR determined that noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the approved project could range from 71 A-weighted decibels (dBA) to 89 dBA at the closest receptor locations within the planning area when construction occurs within 50 feet of receptors.

The approved project would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance construction hours of restriction. The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that construction noise impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, however, construction of the approved project would expose sensitive receptors to adverse noise impacts because of the potential for cumulative construction activities near sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential longevity of construction activities. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1.

Operational Noise (Mobile-Source). The 2020 Certified EIR determined that the roadway segments under the approved project would not contribute to a noise level increase above 3 dBA CNEL along the roadway segments studied for the General Plan Update. In addition,, the roadway segments under the conditions of the approved project would not contribute to a significant cumulative noise level increase as well. Therefore, the approved project would not have a significant adverse impact related to mobile sources.

Operational Noise (Stationary Source). The 2020 Certified EIR determined the approved project would be required to comply with City noise regulations, and that the approved project would not result in significant stationary noise impacts.

Vibration (Construction and Operation). The 2020 Certified EIR determined that the approved project would generate vibration levels of up to 0.05 inches per second root mean square (RMS) vertical velocity, or 94 VdB, when construction activities include pile driving within 25 feet of sensitive receptors. The approved project would be required to adhere to mitigation measures (N-2) and project design features in order to minimize potential construction equipment vibration impacts through compliance with regulatory code related to vibration and ensuring construction equipment operates at the maximum distance feasible from sensitive receptors. The Certified EIR concluded that vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2.

5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Background noise fundamentals information, ambient noise measurement data, and the noise modeling results can be found in Appendix E.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

Ambient Noise Measurements
To determine baseline noise levels in the project vicinity, ambient noise monitoring was conducted by PlaceWorks on Thursday, May 16, 2024. Three short-term (15-minute) measurement locations were selected and conducted around the proposed project site. The short-term sound level meter used (Larson Davis LxT) for noise monitoring satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for Type 1 instrumentation. The short-term sound level meter was set to “slow” response and “A” weighting (dBA). The meter was calibrated prior to and after each monitoring period. All measurements were at least 5 feet above the ground and away from reflective surfaces. Short-term measurement locations are described below and shown in Figure 9, Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations, and results are summarized in Table 9, Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary in A-weighted Sound Levels.

Table 9 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary in A-weighted Sound Levels Monitoring
Location Description
15-minute Noise Level, dBA
Leq Lmax Lmin L50 L25 L8 L2
ST-1 At the westernmost basketball court near Quarry Street, across the residence at 1039 Quarry Street.

61.1 70.3 56.4 60.5 61.6 62.8 66.3
ST-2 At the center most driveway along East 6th street, across from 1020 East 6th Street.

69.8 78.9 57.1 68.6 71.2 73.5 75.3
ST-3 West of Rimpau Avenue, across the residence at 1108 East 5th Street.

63.1 75.1 55.3 59.2 62.6 68.0 71.0
ST-4 South of Quarry Street, adjacent to the residence at 902 Quarry Street.

61.1 72.1 53.1 58.0 61.1 65.5 68.6
Source: PlaceWorks 2024
See Appendix E.
 Short-Term Location 1 (ST-1) was conducted on the project sites westernmost basketball court, on the north side of the project site along Quarry Street across residence at 1039 Quarry Street. The 15-minute noise measurement began at 1:11 PM on Thursday, May 16, 2024. The noise environment is characterized by residential noise from Quarry Street. Noise levels measured 61.1 dBA Leq and 70.3 dBA Lmax during the measurement period at ST-1.
 Short-Term Location 2 (ST-2) was conducted at the centermost driveway, along East 6th Street across from 1020 East 6th Street. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 12:25 PM on Thursday, May 16, 2024.

The noise environment is characterized primarily by roadway noise on East 6th Street. Noise levels measured 69.8 dBA Leq and 78.9 dBA Lmax during the measurement period at ST-2.  Short-Term Location 3 (ST-3) was conducted at the western portion of the project site along Rimpau Avenue, across the residence at 1108 East 5th Street. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 12:50 PM on Thursday, May 16, 2024. The noise environment is characterized primarily by residential noise (i.e. cars, dogs barking, and birds) and industrial noises (i.e. angle grinder). Noise levels measured 63.1 dBA Leq and

75.1 dBA Lmax during the measurement period at ST-3.

PlaceWorks
Figure 9 - Approximate Noise Monitoring 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
ST-X Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (4)
ST-4
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3

CITY OF CORONA

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 123
 Short-Term Location 4 (ST-4) was conducted at the corner of 902 Quarry Street and the project site along the south side of Quarry Street. A 15-minute noise measurement began at 1:32 PM on Thursday, May 16, 2024. The noise environment is characterized primarily by residential noise (i.e. cars, dogs barking, and birds) and the distant train and freeway noise. Noise levels measured 61.1 dBA Leq and 72.1 dBA Lmax during the measurement period at ST-4.

Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Residential receptors are located to the north, across Quarry Street, to the east, across Rimpau Avenue, to the south, across East 6th Street, and to the west, at the corner of Quarry Street and Grand Boulevard and across Grand Boulevard.

Would the project result in:

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) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2020 Certified EIR stated that construction would occur near noise-sensitive receptors and found noise impacts potentially significant and unavoidable. The nearest receptors identified under the approved project were residences at approximately 50 feet or greater as measured from the center of the project site. Construction noise levels at the nearest receptors were estimated to range up to 89 dBA Lmax under the approved project.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each phase of construction involves different types of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest three pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Average noise levels from project-related construction activities are calculated by modeling the three loudest pieces of equipment per activity phase. Equipment for grading and site preparation is modeled at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site to the property line of the nearest receptors) because the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors for mobile equipment. Building construction and architectural coating are measured from the edge of the proposed buildings to the nearest sensitive receptors. Additionally, paving is measured from the edge of the nearest paving areas to the nearest sensitive receptors. Results are summarized in Table 10, Project Related Construction Noise Levels (dBA), at the nearest receptors. Construction noise levels at a reference distance of 50 feet would range between 74 dBA and 84 dBA Leq throughout the construction period.

The nearest sensitive receptors under the proposed project include single-family homes, approximately 50 feet north, east, and west of the nearest project site paving areas. Construction equipment mix is anticipated to be similar to that of the Approved Project and include concrete saws, dozers, excavators, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, forklifts, generators, welders, air compressors, pavers and paving equipment, and rollers. These items were modeled using RCNM. The proposed project construction noise levels would range between 45 dBA to 77 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors throughout the construction phases.

Proposed project construction would not exceed the FTA 80 dBA Leq threshold at adjacent residential uses.

Additionally, proposed project construction would comply with the Corona Municipal Code 17.84.040(D)(2) Table 10 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels
Construction Activity Phase
Noise Levels in dBA Leq
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
Residential
Receptors to North
Residential
Receptors to East
Residential
Receptors to South
Residential
Receptors to West
Distance in feet 50 3601 2751 3401 2501
Site Preparation 82 65 67 65 68
Grading 84 67 69 67 70
Distance in feet 50 120 280 170 1340
Building Construction 81 73 66 70 52
Architectural Coating 74 66 59 63 45
Distance in feet 50 50 50 80 70
Paving 77 77 77 73 74
Exceeds FTA’s 80 dBA Leq Threshold? No No No No
Source: FHWA’s RCNM software.
dBA Leq = Energy-Average (Leq) Sound Levels. 1 Distanced were measured using Google Earth (2025) from the acoustical center of the project site.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 125
and no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays. Therefore, the buildout of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in construction noise 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 construction noise. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

Mobile-Source Noise Impacts
The proposed project would generate an increase in total daily trips compared to existing daily trips, specifically along (East 6th Street, Grand Boulevard, Quarry Street, Rimpau Avenue). A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to traffic noise if it substantially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an outdoor environment.

Based on this, a significant impact would occur if project traffic noise increases of 1.5 dBA along East Grand Boulevard, Quarry Street, East Sixth Street, Rimpau Avenue, and Fullerton Avenue and increases of 3 dBA along East 3rd Street, relative to the existing noise environment.

Traffic noise increases are calculated using a version of the FHWA RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model.

The traffic noise prediction model takes into account the following inputs: weekday and Saturday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes; vehicle mix; speeds; number of lanes; and day, evening, and night traffic splits. Model inputs associated with transportation noise were provided by Gibson (2026) (see Appendix E). Traffic noise modeling does not account for existing masonry walls at adjacent residential property lines. Table 11, Weekday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet, shows that the addition of proposed project trips would result in an increase of up to 0.7 dBA over existing conditions and up to 0.6 over future weekday conditions.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

Table 11 Weekday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Roadway
Segment Traffic Noise Increase in dBA CNEL
From
To
Existing No
Project
Existing Plus
Project Increase
Future No
Project
Future Plus
Project Increase
East Grand
Boulevard
North of East Third Street 68.0 68.1 0.1 68.2 68.3 0.1
East 3rd Street West of East Grand Boulevard 58.7 58.9 0.2 59.6 59.8 0.2 Quarry Street East of East Grand Boulevard 62.1 62.7 0.7 62.3 63.0 0.6 East Grand
Boulevard
North of East Sixth Street 67.6 67.7 0.1 67.9 68.0 0.1
East Grand
Boulevard
South of East Sixth Street 66.4 66.5 0.2 66.8 66.9 0.1
East Sixth Street West of East Grand Boulevard 66.6 66.7 0.1 67.1 67.1 0.1 East Sixth Street East of East Grand Boulevard 70.0 70.1 0.1 70.3 70.3 0.1 East Sixth Street Between Kress Court & Rimpau
Avenue

71.1 71.1 0.0 71.3 71.3 0.0
East Sixth Street East of Rimpau Avenue 71.5 71.5 0.0 71.7 71.8 0.0 Rimpau Avenue North of East Sixth Street 62.2 62.7 0.5 62.5 63.0 0.5 Rimpau Avenue South of East Sixth Street 61.9 62.0 0.2 62.1 62.3 0.2 Fullerton Avenue South of East Grand Boulevard 65.4 65.6 0.1 65.9 66.0 0.1 Source: Project traffic based on Exhibit 7 of the Transportation Assessment for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project by Gibson (2026).

See Appendix E for modeling inputs and results.

Table 12, Saturday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet, shows that the addition of proposed project trips would result in an increase of up to 0.8 dBA over existing conditions and up to 0.7 over future Saturday conditions.

Table 12 Saturday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Roadway
Segment Traffic Noise Increase in dBA CNEL
From To
Existing No
Project
Existing Plus
Project Increase
Future No
Project
Future Plus
Project Increase
East Grand
Boulevard
North of East Third Street 66.4 66.5 0.1 66.6 66.7 0.1
East 3rd Street West of East Grand Boulevard 56.9 57.1 0.2 58.2 58.4 0.1 Quarry Street East of East Grand Boulevard 59.7 60.5 0.8 60.0 60.7 0.7 East Grand
Boulevard
North of East Sixth Street 66.3 66.3 0.1 66.5 66.6 0.1
East Grand
Boulevard
South of East Sixth Street 65.0 65.2 0.1 65.5 65.6 0.1
East Sixth Street West of East Grand Boulevard 65.9 65.9 0.1 66.3 66.4 0.1 East Sixth Street East of East Grand Boulevard 68.9 69.0 0.1 69.2 69.3 0.1 East Sixth Street Between Kress Court & Rimpau
Avenue

70.1 70.0 0.0 70.3 70.3 0.0
East Sixth Street East of Rimpau Avenue 70.1 70.1 0.0 70.4 70.4 0.0 Rimpau Avenue North of East Sixth Street 64.6 64.9 0.2 64.9 65.1 0.2 Rimpau Avenue South of East Sixth Street 55.8 56.2 0.4 56.1 56.5 0.4

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 127
Table 12 Saturday Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet Roadway
Segment Traffic Noise Increase in dBA CNEL
From To
Existing No
Project
Existing Plus
Project Increase
Future No
Project
Future Plus
Project Increase
Fullerton Avenue South of East Grand Boulevard 64.0 64.1 0.1 64.6 64.7 0.1 Source: Project traffic based on Exhibit 7 of the Transportation Assessment for the Corona City Park Revitalization Project by Gibson (2026).

See Appendix E for modeling inputs and results.

Existing land uses adjacent to the project site are developed with mixed uses and noise sensitive receptors that would be exposed to project traffic noise level increases. With the addition of proposed weekday and Saturday project traffic, traffic noise levels along 6th Street, Grand Boulevard, Quarry Street, Rimpau Avenue, 3rd Street and Fullerton Avenue project related traffic noise increases would be less than 1 dBA CNEL for weekdays and Saturday conditions at noise sensitive residential uses. Project traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. There would be no new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impact in the General Plan EIR. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

Amphitheater Noise
As discussed above, a change of 5 dBA is readily discernible in an exterior environment and a change in 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling in sound level. Based on this and noted that proposed project events (live music concerts and general outdoor festivals) would result in temporary periodic (not daily) increases in ambient noise levels from the proposed park events, a threshold of 10 dBA above the ambient is used. A noise increase above 10 dBA for periodic events (live music concerts and general outdoor festivals) would be considered a noise impact.

The proposed project would host a variety of events throughout the year in addition to weekly farmers market events. Outdoor amphitheater events would include a portable stage area for live music concerts and general outdoor festivals to host concerts and movies in the park events in the summer months. These live music events would be family-friendly in nature, taking into consideration that children under 13 years old are more noise sensitive because they have better hearing than adults, and would most likely preclude noise intensive rock band concerts. Rock band concerts can reach 100 dBA, where family friendly and classical music events typically range between 75 dBA and 95 dBA. Proposed music events would fall in the 75 dBA to 95 dBA range. Condition of Approval (COA) N-1, will be incorporated with the proposed project and stipulates that amphitheater sound system output would be restricted to an average of 90 dBA Leq, averaged over a 15-minute period, and instantaneous maximum noise levels of 95 dBA Lmax at a position located 100 feet from the portable stage area and portable movie screen of the park in addition to noise monitoring throughout live music events for appropriate sound system mixing board adjustments to ensure compliance with regulations.

A conservative approach for analyzing proposed live music events has been assumed for this analysis.

Amphitheater noise has been assessed with the 3D noise prediction model Cadna/A, an implementation of the ISO 9613 noise propagation calculation algorithms, with respect to events planned for the outdoor amphitheater that will be developed in the centrally located Community Canvas (RDWI 2025). The outdoor amphitheater is part of the renovation project that includes a portable stage area to be set up for live music

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

concerts and general outdoor festivals. The Amphitheater noise modeling detailed below, includes the predicted noise impacts for two categories of events due to crowd and PA noise, showing noise contour results and numerical noise levels at the adjacent single-family and multi-family uses at the nearest building façades taking into account the proposed site design and off-site buildings. Spectral sound data for the concert was approximated based on data for a rock concert and applied to capture the potential effects of low frequency noise (i.e. bass). The spectrum adopted in the analysis is shown in Appendix G.

For live music concerts, a music noise level of 100 dBA (Leq, 15 min) evenly distributed over the audience area up to 100 ft from the stage (i.e. typical front of house mixing location) was assumed and derived from the World Health Organization Guidelines for Community Noise related to ceremonies, festivals and entertainment events. The source noise level was assumed to be evenly distributed over a semi-circular in the vicinity of the stage, resulting in noise levels ranging from 75 dBA to 80 dBA Leq, 15 min at the extents of the amphitheater clearing, where tree plantings surround the amphitheater grounds. For general outdoor festivals (including movies in the park, theatrical performances, announcements and background music), an audience area noise level of 80 dBA Leq, 15 min has been assumed for the full amphitheater area.

Exterior noise levels at adjacent land uses to the proposed project due to amphitheater activities are shown in Table 13, Project-Related Amphitheater Noise, dBA. Modeled noise contours are also shown in Appendix G. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors during live rock music concerts are predicted to be in the range of 69 dBA to 77 dBA Leq, 15 min. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors with implementation of COA N-1 are predicted to be in the range of 59 dBA to 71 dBA Leq, 15 min. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors during general outdoor activities are predicted to range from 52 dBA to 59 dBA Leq, 15 min.

Table 13 Project-Related Amphitheater Noise, dBA
Receptor
Measure Ambient
Noise Level (dBA
Predicted Sound Levels at Sensitive
Receptors
COA N-1
Noise Limit 90
dBA Leq at
100 feet
Increase Over Ambient
Live Music Concerts
(dBA Leq, 15 min)
General Outdoor
Festivals
(dBA Leq, 15 min)
Live Music
Concerts
Increase Over
Ambient
General Outdoor
Festivals
Increase Over
Ambient
North 61 73 55 63-68 2-7 None
South-East 63 72 56 62-67 1-4 None
South 70 77 59 67-71 >1- 1 None
West 61 69 52 59-64 >1- 2 None
Source: RWDI (2025). See Appendix E.

As shown in Table 13, amphitheater noise during live music concerts, when implementing COA N-1 (maximum permissible noise levels and noise monitoring) would result in ambient noise level increases between >1 dBA to 7 dBA at adjacent noise sensitive uses to the project site. Amphitheater noise during general outdoor festivals (including movies in the park, theatrical performances, announcements and background music) would not result in ambient noise level increases at adjacent noise sensitive uses to the project site.

The proposed project noise levels attributable to live music concerts would result in a +7 dBA increase in ambient noise levels at noise sensitive residential receptors to the north of the project site. As discussed above,

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 129
a noise increase of 10 dBA above existing ambient noise levels for periodic events (such as live music concerts) would be considered a significant impact, however compliance with COA N-1 would ensure impacts are less than significant.

Parking Lot Noise
The project includes 304 parking stalls or a net increase of 135 parking stalls from the existing 169 parking stalls;141 new parking stalls at the Main Parking Lot, located at corner of 6th Street and Rimpau Avenue; 63 parking stalls at the Quarry Street & West Parking Lot, 40 parking stalls in the West Quarry Parking Lot, and 60 parking stalls in the Kress Court Parking Lot. The residential receptors are located north of the project site, along Quarry Street; to east of the site along Rimpau Avenue; and to the west adjacent to the project site.

Parking Lot activities such as parking, loading and unloading of vehicles, entering and exiting the parking lot would occur for short periods of approximately 1 to 5 minutes consisting of vehicles idling, doors opening and closing, and voices. Based on measurements conducted from a previous project by PlaceWorks, the SEL associated with a parking event is typically 71 dB SEL at 50 feet. To quantify parking lot noise levels, a conservative approach of four (4) parking events per stall would occur within a peak hour. Assuming that each parking stall were to fill and empty (596 parking events total) during the peak hour, the noise level would be 63 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the center of the parking lot. The nearest residential property line is approximately 200 feet east from the center of the proposed parking lot, resulting in a parking lot noise level of 51 dBA Leq at the property line. The modeled new parking lot noise level would be 10 dBA less than the measured ambient noise level of 63 dBA Leq at noise monitoring site ST-3. The proposed project’s parking lot noise would comply with the City of Corona Code 17.84.040(C)(2) daytime standard of 55 dBA and would not substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project Therefore, parking lot noise impacts would be less than significant. 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) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Under the approved project, vibration impacts were found to be less than significant as the surrounding communities were not built out at the time of the approved project’s construction schedule.

However, under the proposed project, sensitive receptors within the surrounding communities are built out and occupied. Therefore, analysis of the proposed project is analyzed below evaluating vibration damage and annoyance at the nearby off-site sensitive receptors.

Potential vibration impacts associated with construction of projects are usually related to the use of heavy construction equipment during the demolition or grading phases of construction. Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Construction equipment generates vibration that spreads through the ground and diminishes with distance from the source.

The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures.

For reference, a peak particle velocity of 0.20 in/sec PPV is used as the limit for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (which would apply to the off-site surrounding residential structures) (FTA 20184). The Certified EIR applied a 0.20 in/sec PPV residential threshold, in addition to Section 17.84.050 of the Corona Municipal Code threshold of vibration perception at no more than 0.05 inches per second root mean squared (RMS) vertical velocity (equivalent to 94 VdB5). Table 14, Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, shows typical construction equipment reference vibration levels at a distance of 25 feet and vibration levels at adjacent receptors. The nearest construction activity would occur closest to the residences to the north of the project site. The closest buildings to the project site are 50 feet north and south of the nearest project construction activity area.

Table 14 Vibration Impact Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
Reference Levels at
25 Feet
Residential
Receptors to North at
50 feet
Residential
Receptors to South
at 50 feet
Residential
Receptors to East at
80 feet
Residential
Receptors to West at
70 feet
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
PPV
(in/sec) VdB
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 0.074 85 0.074 85 0.037 79 0.045 81 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 0.031 78 0.031 78 0.016 72 0.019 74 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 0.031 78 0.031 78 0.016 72 0.019 74
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 0.027 77 0.027 77 0.013 71 0.016 73 Jackhammer 0.035 79 0.012 70 0.012 70 0.006 64 0.007 66 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 0.001 49 0.001 49 0.001 43 0.001 45 Source: FTA 2018.

See Appendix E for modeling inputs and results.

Potential architectural impacts due to vibration are assessed from the edge of construction to the nearest offsite structure. No intensive vibration activity such as pile driving, or rock crushing is proposed in the proposed project. The equipment anticipated to induce the highest vibration is a vibratory roller for new pavement by the proposed building. Vibratory rollers generate vibration levels of 0.21 in/sec PPV at 25 feet.

The nearest sensitive receptors to project construction activities would be the residences to the north, south, and west at approximately 50 feet. The resulting vibration levels at these buildings due to construction vibration would be up to 0.074 in/sec PPV and 85 VdB. Project construction vibration levels would not exceed City criteria for human annoyance of 94 VdB and FTA threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV at adjacent residential uses to the proposed project. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in construction vibration compared to what was analyzed in the 2020 Certified EIR. 4 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 5 Lv = 20Log10(V/Vref) Lv = velocity level, VdB
V = rms velocity amplitude
Vref = .000001 in/sec

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 131
The proposed project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in 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.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport to the approved project was the Corona Municipal Airport approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site. As stated in the approved project, the airport is not a substantial source of noise because the 65 dBA noise contour does not extend past the airport boundary. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. 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.

5.13.1 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; however, none of the measures are applicable to the proposed project.

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.
 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.
 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.  Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.
 Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors.  Construction traffic shall be limited—to the extent feasible—to approved haul routes established by the City.
 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

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

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.
 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.  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 noise level, or to utilize human spotters when feasible and in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
 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.

N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources, 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster), or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry), or the City threshold of 0.05 in/sec RMS (94 VdB). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such static rollers and drilling piles as opposed to pile driving shall be used.

5.13.2 Conditions of Approval Applicable to the Proposed Project The following conditions of approval (COA) would be incorporated as part of the proposed project.

Conditions of Approval
COA-N-1 The City shall implement measures to reduce ed 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:
 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.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 133
 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.
 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.
 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 PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts to population and housing.

Population Growth
Implementation of the Approved Project would result in an increase of 11,511 housing units, 39,298 residents, 26,478,352 square feet of building space, and 31,156 jobs over approximately 20 years in the City of Corona and its SOI. The forecast population and housing units at General Plan buildout would exceed the SCAG growth projections (172,300 persons and 49,400 housing units) by 6.8 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively, for the City of Corona. The difference between project buildout and SCAG projections is that SCAGs projections are utilized in this analysis for general comparison purposes, and buildout is based on a reasonable worst-case buildout of the parcels in the City. A comparison of the General Plan buildout to SCAG’s population, housing, and employment projections assist in providing context for comparison. More importantly, the state of California has a shortage of housing. Thus, although the increases to population and housing units are greater than SCAG’s regional forecasts for 2040, impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of the Housing Element policies, which include aiming to provide housing to meet the community’s demand.

The Approved Project would also allow for 82,191,657 square feet of additional nonresidential development in the City and SOI, and approximately 31,156 more jobs compared to existing conditions. Although this is considered a substantial increase in employment, the forecast employment after buildout of the City would not exceed the SCAG growth projections. The City’s job-housing ratio would increase from existing conditions but would continue to be within the target ratio of 1.3 to 1.7 jobs for every housing unit. Therefore, while the buildout of the Approved Project would directly and indirectly induce population growth, the jobs-housing ratio in the City and SOI would continue to be balanced. Therefore, implementation of the Approved Project and adherence to General Plan policies would result in a less than significant impact relating to population growth.

Displacing People or Housing
The City of Corona and its SOI are developed with a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. The proposed General Plan would allow existing uses to continue and would not change land use designations, density, and intensity levels beyond that which is in the 2004 General Plan.

Because land use designations, density, or intensity levels would be the same as in the 2004 General Plan, which was current at the time the 2020 Certified EIR was prepared, no existing uses or populations would be forced to move or be relocated as a result of project implementation. In addition, the General Plan would accommodate 11,511 new units compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to the displacement of people and/or housing would be less than significant, as a result of the Approved Project implementation

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 135

5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The proposed project would continue to operate as a park serving the existing recreational needs of the City and would not induce population growth. The proposed project would not create a significant number of new employment opportunities that could result in a greater demand for local housing, since construction employment would be short-term and sourced from the surrounding areas. Any increase in onsite employment during operation would be negligible and accommodated by the existing pool of City parks staff. Additionally, the proposed project would continue to utilize the existing roads and infrastructure; with no new roads, expanded utility lines, or housing are proposed. Therefore, project development would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. 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. No impact would occur and preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No housing exists on the project site, nor does the proposed project include construction of housing. No relocation or construction of replacement housing would occur or be necessary as a result of the proposed project. 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. No impact would occur, and preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required by CEQA.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.14.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to population and housing were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 137

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts to public services.

Fire Protection
Buildout of the General Plan would result in 18,720 new residents and 13,423 new workers in the City of Corona and 20,578 new residents and 17,733 new workers in the SOI, which would result in an increase in demand for fire services and facilities. The CFD has not historically met its response time goals in the City’s periphery areas due to the location of the fire stations. The CFD does not have the command-and-control structure and equipment (e.g., bulldozers and tankers) to provide services for an extended attack. Therefore, anything that requires substantial resources (e.g., wildfires over 5 acres) requires effective support from the CFD’s partners (i.e., CAL FIRE and the US Forest Service). Fire vehicles, equipment, and expansion of existing facilities is funded partially through Development Impact Fees (DIF), a Community Facilities District (i.e., tax assessment district) and funding from property taxes. The additional demand for fire services and protection generated within the City would be satisfied through these sources. However, over 50 percent of the population and job growth associated with the General Plan would occur in the City’s SOI, which is currently designated an SRA, which means that fires in the SOI are the financial responsibility of the state (i.e., CAL FIRE). Future development projects would be reviewed by the City of Corona and CFD on an individual basis to ensure compliance with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including compliance with adopted fire codes, building code, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the State of California. Therefore, adherence with local and State requirements and available sources of funding to staff and purchase necessary equipment and facilities, impacts to fire protection and emergency services and facilities would be less than significant.

Police Protection
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce additional residents and workers in the City of Corona, and the City’s SOI, which would result in an increase in demand for police services. According to the 2017-2018 Corona Police Strategic Plan, a goal is to maintain adequate staffing ratios, which states that a minimum of one officer per thousand residents is recommended. To meet this goal, the Corona Police Department (CPD) would need to hire an additional 19 officers to accommodate the population growth in the City of Corona and 21 officers to accommodate the growth in the SOI. However, staff needs could vary greatly based on crime trends, special events, and City and SOI needs, so staffing needs could be higher or lower.

However, over 50 percent of the population and job growth associated with the General Plan would occur within the SOI, which is currently served by the Riverside County Sheriff ’s Department. Police services staffing levels in the City of Corona would continue to be established by the CPD, and the Riverside County Sheriff ’s Department would continue to establish staffing levels for police services in the unincorporated communities until the unincorporated communities in the SOI are incorporated into the City of Corona. A plan for Services must identify in detail how and when services will be provided and funded and the recommendations for additional staff, equipment, and facilities to ensure the same level of service to the residents and businesses of

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

the SOI for police services. As development increases in the City and SOI, the available funds from taxes, Community Facility District Fees, and DIF received from such development, and additional requirements outlined in the Plan for Services for annexations would provide the additional facilities, equipment, and officers needed to serve the growing population. Therefore, impacts to police services would be less than significant.

School Services
The increase in residents would also lead to an increase in the City and SOI’s student population, which is primarily served by the Corona-Norco Unified School District (CNUSD). There is one school in the City of Corona that is served by Alvord USD—Promenade Elementary School. The CNUSD would have adequate capacity for students generated by the Approved Project. If and when CNUSD needs to expand and construct new facilities funding for new schools would be obtained from the fee program pursuant to SB 50 and state and federal funding programs. Impacts on school services would be less than significant, as a result of the General Plan implementation.

Library Services
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce additional residents and workers in the City of Corona and the City’s SOI, which would result in an increase in demand for library services. The American Library Association does not have standards for facility size and circulation, but rather, supports local benchmarks. Using benchmarks against city and county libraries across California, Corona would need to acquire 12,500 sf to meet the median benchmark. Therefore, with adequate funding sources and adherence to local policies, impacts would be less than significant.

5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 139
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
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. CFD would continue to provide fire protection and emergency services to the project site.

CFD provides fire protection, emergency services, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and disaster preparedness and response (Corona 2019a). The nearest CFD fire station to the project site is Station #2, at 225 East Harrison Street, approximately 0.75 miles northwest. Other stations may also respond to calls from the project site and/or support fire protection needs at the project site.

Construction
During the construction of the proposed project, construction workers would temporarily be onsite.

Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with state building and fire codes to ensure onsite safety during construction. The code includes standards for building and construction, requirements for emergency access, hazardous material handling, and fire protection systems. Construction plans for the proposed project would be reviewed and inspected by CFD to ensure all requirements are met, such as adequate emergency access to the project site during construction. Therefore, project construction would not affect fire/emergency response protection services to the extent that new or physically altered fire facilities would be needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services, construction-related impacts on fire protection would be less than significant. 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.

Operation
The proposed project is intended to revitalize Corona City Park and expand community uses. The proposed project would redevelop the existing park with a new community center, sports facilities, aquatics center

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

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 would not induce population growth within the City; it would serve the existing and future residents of the city. However, the proposed project would increase the number of events occurring onsite. The increase in events would generate more people and activities on the project site, which may create an increase in demand for fire protection services compared to existing conditions onsite. The existing access and circulation features at the project site would be altered to better accommodate emergency access to the proposed community center, aquatics center, and other park facilities. 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. The proposed project would be designed to accommodate emergency access to the project site in accordance with the fire code. Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site and all other areas of the site via four parking lots: two along Quarry Street, one at the intersection of Rimpau Avenue and East 6th Street, and one at the intersection of East Grand Boulevard and East 6th Street. The proposed project site access would be reviewed by CFD, and proposed events on-site would be supervised by the City. Although the proposed project may create a slight increase in the demand for fire protection services compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would not generate an increase in fire protection facilities or personnel in a manner that would require new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The proposed project would not require new or physically alter fire protection facilities or routes. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services. 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.
ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The City of Corona receives police services from CPD. CPD provides police protections services out of the Corona Police Department at 730 Public Safety Way approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the project site.

Construction
During the construction of the proposed project, construction workers would temporarily be on-site.

Construction of the proposed project would maintain emergency access and emergency egress routes during project construction. Active construction areas would be fenced during the construction phase, and construction site access would be limited to authorized personnel. Further, the storage and staging of construction equipment would occur onsite, which is fenced, and equipment and vehicles would be locked and only accessible by authorized personnel. Therefore, the temporary construction activities of the proposed project would not materially increase the demand for police protection services. It would not result in the need for physically altered or new sheriff facilities, which could result in environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. 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 REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 141
Operation
The proposed project is intended to revitalize Corona City Park and expand community uses. 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 would not induce population growth within the City; it would serve the existing and future residents of the city. However, the proposed project would increase the number of events occurring onsite. The increase in events would generate more people and activities on the project site, which may create an increase in demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions onsite. Further, as discussed above, the proposed project would alter emergency access, but emergency access would be designed in accordance with the fire code and would be reviewed by the CPD. Although the proposed project may create a slight increase in the demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would not generate an increase in police protection facilities or personnel that would require new or physically altered police protection facilities. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on police protection services. 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.
iii) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would revitalize the existing Corona City Park, and all construction would be limited to the project site boundaries. The closest school campus is Lincoln Fundamental Elementary School approximately 0.30 miles south of the project site. Additionally, demand for schools is largely generated by new housing developments. The proposed project would continue to operate as a park and serve the existing resident populations’ recreational needs and would not induce population growth.

Therefore, no impact to schools 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. iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would revitalize the existing Corona City Park and all construction would be limited to the project site boundaries. 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 would not induce population growth within the City. However, the proposed project would increase the number of events occurring on-site. Yet it would not increase the use of existing surrounding parks or recreational facilities in the city, or the need for new parks or recreational facilities. The proposed project would continue to operate as a park available to the public and serve the City’s recreational needs. Thus, the proposed project would provide improved recreational opportunities to the City and surrounding communities and moderately increase the demand on the Corona City Park. A

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

less than significant impact to parks would occur. Accordingly, no new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity than those identified in the 2020m Certified EIR would occur. No changes or new information would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. v) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The City of Corona contains and operates one public library, the Corona Public Library at 605 South Main Street approximately 0.50 miles west of the project site. The proposed project would revitalize the Corona City Park and would not induce population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate any additional demand for library facilities. The proposed project would not require new or physically alter library facilities. A less than significant impact to libraries 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.

5.15.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to public services were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 143

5.16 RECREATION

5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts to recreation.

Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities
Buildout of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 11,511 dwelling units, and an estimated increase in population of 39,298 residents. This increase in population would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. There is no state or federal statute detailing how to calculate the City’s level of park service; however, the City’s park standard is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase in parkland demand of 56 acres in the City and 62 acres in the SOI, for a total of 118 acres. Additional growth would be accommodated by the existing parkland in the City and SOI. Further, new developments would be required to pay development impact fees and/or dedicate parkland or pay an in-lieu fee. The adherence to local policies and construction of new parks to keep up with demand would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Environmental Impacts
Buildout under the General Plan would increase the City’s population growth and availability of funds, and portions of undeveloped land would be improved as parks and recreational facilities to provide residents with new recreational opportunities while meeting the City’s parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

Development and operation of future new or expanded parks and recreational facilities may have an adverse physical effect on the environment, including impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, lighting, noise, and traffic. Site-specific impacts analysis of these future parks would be required under CEQA. The expansion of parks and recreational facilities pursuant to the buildout of the land use plan would be less than significant upon the implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions and existing federal, state, and local regulations.

5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

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
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The City of Coronas’ Community Services Department’s Park Division operates 35 parks, various walking trails, bike paths, and other open space areas (i.e., Fresno Canyon and Sage Open Space) (Corona 2020).

The City has access to “Cleveland National Forest, which forms the southwest boundary of the City; Prado Basin, to the northwest of the City; and Chino Hills State Park to the northwest of the City,” which provides additional recreational uses including hiking, bicycling, equestrian use, and camping (Corona 2020).

Additionally, residents have access to various local public schools within the City for additional active recreational facilities after school hours.

The proposed project would revitalize Corona City Park, one of the existing 35 parks within the City.

Improvements to the park would enhance sports and playground facilities, and include construction of a new community center, an aquatics center, pedestrian walkways, and other park amenities. The revitalized park would be open to the public and residents of the City of Corona. The proposed project does not include the construction of new housing, nor would it induce population growth. With the expansion of recreational services, there may be a marginal increase in use; however, uses would be similar to existing conditions and would not generate an increased demand for other existing neighborhood or regional parks or recreational facilities and would not result in substantial physical deterioration of such facilities nor cause deterioration to accelerate. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policies LU 1.1, 5.5, 5.8, and 15.1. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a less than significant 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project is a park revitalization project of the existing Corona City Park.

Construction of the proposed project would involve site preparation activities, including demolition, grading

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 145
and excavation, and construction of permanent facilities. Staging for construction equipment and activities would occur on an adjacent vacant parcel, and not within any off-site parkland or recreational facility. These construction activities would be limited to the project site and would not restrict access to nearby off-site recreational facilities. The physical environmental effects of the proposed project’s construction activities are evaluated under the relevant topical sections of this Addendum, where impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities beyond what is evaluated in this Addendum. Therefore, a less than significant 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.

5.16.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to recreation were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR. .

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

5.17.1 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 transportation/traffic impacts.

Plan Consistency
Implementation of the Approved Project would increase demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, which would require the improvement and expansion of the circulation system. The Circulation Element includes policies that support public transit, bicycle improvements, and improvements to the pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the General Plan is consistent with the 2016 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Future development would be constructed in consistency with regional and local planning efforts supporting these modes of travel.

Traffic generated by General Plan Buildout conditions plus the traffic generated by regional growth would contribute to the existing congestion of I-15 and SR-91 and, therefore, would conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). A potentially significant impact was identified.

Trip Generation
The City of Corona has adopted a threshold of no net increase in VMT compared to existing conditions.

Buildout of the Approved Project is anticipated to increase VMT compared to existing conditions due to the planned growth in the outlying areas of the City rather than in the City center, which is already built out.

Cumulatively, the buildout of the General Plan would result in a slight (0.03 percent) increase in VMT. The increase in VMT forecasted is within the model standard error and is likely negligible. However, cumulative impacts are conservatively considered significant because the model results show an increase compared to the 2004 General Plan.

Circulation Improvements and Emergency Access
Buildout of the Approved Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the City, and thus, improvements to the circulation network. These improvements would be subject to review and future consideration by the City’s Public Works engineering staff. Roadway improvements would have to be made in accordance with the City’s circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet design guidelines in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual.

Adherence to the local and State policies reduces impacts, and implementation of the General Plan would not result in hazardous conditions, create conflicting uses, or cause a detriment to emergency vehicle access.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 147

5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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 a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element sets forth goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, and safety, among others. The proposed project would support the Circulation Element.

Proposed project features would include pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site, as well as connections with the adjacent public sidewalks. The proposed project also includes street trees and streetscaping plants along public frontages in accordance with the City’s standards to increase tree canopy and provide a safe and inviting new pedestrian network. Bicycle access is available via bike lanes along the north and south sides of East 6th Street in both directions. The proposed project would not impact the existing bicycle access and circulation. Additionally, RTA Bus Route 1 services the Sixth Street bus stop adjacent to the site. The proposed project would not impact bus, and RTA Bus Route 1 would continue to serve users of the project site.

The proposed project would help implement and be consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies, including but not limited to:
 Policy CE-5.1. Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to national standards and uniform practices; adhere to accessibility requirements for people with disabilities.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

 Policy CE-5.2. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and encourage new development to provide walkways between and through developments.
 Policy CE-5.6. Encourage new and existing development to provide accessible and secure areas for bicycle storage. Provide bicycle racks or storage facilities at public facilities and require bicycle parking, storage, and other support facilities as part of new office and retail developments.

The proposed project would not result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs, nor is it expected to negatively affect the performance or safety of existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. It would have a less than significant impact on transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site. 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 or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, which started a process that fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in CEQA review. As part of the updated CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code sec. 21099(b)(1)). On January 20, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743. Final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed on December 28, 2018, when the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package, including guidelines implementing SB 743.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator of the travel levels on the roadway system by motor vehicles. It corresponds to the number of vehicles multiplied by the distance traveled in a given period over a geographical area. In other words, VMT is a function of (1) number of daily trips and (2) the average trip length (VMT = daily trips x average trip length).

A VMT Screening Analysis was conducted for the proposed project and is included in Appendix F.

Transportation impacts under CEQA are based on VMT. Per the City of Corona Guidelines, several screening criteria may be applied to determine the need for VMT modeling and analysis. Projects that meet any of the following screening criteria are generally presumed to generate below-average VMT and therefore have a lessthan-significant transportation impact under CEQA:
 Projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) or High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) as determined by the most recent Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) RTP/SCS. TPAs are defined as a ½ mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. HQTAs are defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 149
 Projects located in a low VMT-generating Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).

As confirmed with the SCAG HQTA Map, the project site is determined to be within an HQTA as required by the City of Ontario Guidelines and RTA Bus Route 1 services the Sixth Street bus stop adjacent to the site.

Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the HQTA criteria. The Western Riverside Council of Governments VMT Tool confirmed that the project site is in a low-VMT generating zone (Albert J. Webb Associates 2025).

Additionally, the proposed project consists of revitalizing the existing Corona City Park and does not result in a change from the existing public park space. The proposed project is consistent with the SCAG SCS/RTP and is screened out from further analysis based on the City of Corona Guidelines. Thus, the project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT and therefore screened from further analysis Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by a total of six vehicle access points: an ingress and egress access point via Rimpau Avenue, two ingress/egress access point via Quarry Street, one ingress/egress access point via East Grand Boulevard, and two ingress/egress access point via East 6th Street. The new vehicle access points would be designed and constructed to ensure adequate vehicle and emergency access and provide a continuous path of travel. All access and circulation improvements would be reviewed by the CFD and would be constructed to City and CFD standards. The proposed project does not include any major changes to roadways, or pedestrian circulation. The proposed project includes improvements to the on-site vehicular circulation discussed in Section 3.2.5 and Figure 6. Based on the Transportation Assessment there would be no deficiencies at the studied roadway segments at and surrounding the project site as a result of the proposed project (Appendix G). The proposed project would not cause or contribute to excessive queuing and would not result in a safety impact at the Caltrans off-ramps (Main Street & SR 91 westbound and eastbound ramps). The Transportation Assessment identifies additional circulation improvement measures that may be incorporated during final design to further enhance on-site circulation efficiency. These measures are not required to avoid or reduce a significant transportation impact associated with the proposed project. The proposed project’s driveways and vehicular access points would not introduce hazardous design features. Additionally, the proposed project is an urban area and does not include incompatible uses such as farm equipment. As such, the proposed project does not represent an incompatible use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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 inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access to the project site and does not

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

alter any existing public roadways. All proposed parking lot and circulation improvements are subject to CFD review and approval. Additionally, the proposed project includes a new fire lane that would extend through the central portion of the project site, connecting East 6th Street to Quarry Street, providing additional emergency access to the project site Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to emergency access. 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.

5.17.3 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.

The proposed project is scoped out of VMT and therefore the following mitigation does not apply.

T-1 The City shall consider the following implementation programs to reduce citywide VMT:
 VMT exchange program. VMT generators can select from a pre-approved list of mitigation projects that may be located within the same jurisdiction or possibly from a larger area. The intent is to match the project’s needed VMT reduction with a specific mitigation project of matching size and to provide evidence that the VMT reduction will reasonably occur.
 VMT Mitigation Bank. A mitigation bank is intended to serve as an entity or organization that pools fees from development projects across multiple jurisdictions to spend on larger scale mitigation projects. This concept differs from the more conventional impact fee program approach described above in that the fees are directed to a few larger projects that have the potential for a more significant reduction in VMT and the program is regional in nature.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 151

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Tribal Cultural Resources
A total of 70 previously recorded resources within the City of Corona (including 30 prehistoric resources) and 86 resources in the City’s SOI (including 74 prehistoric resources). NAHC stated that buildout of the Approved Project would impact potential sites and provided a list of 31 Native American groups and individuals who may have knowledge of tribal cultural resources (TCR) in the City. Future development could include grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas and disturb tribal cultural resources. Adherence to Approved Project policies and state guidelines would reduce impacts; however, ground disturbing activities could be potentially significant to TCR. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 and Mitigation Measure CUL-5 identified in the 2020 Certified EIR would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.

5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed 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) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

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
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or No Impact. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph with Photo Locations, the project site is developed with the Corona City Park and related buildings, play structures, and site improvements. The existing park began development in 1912 and became Corona’s first public park opening in 1913. The AARIE Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix D) conducted a records search and identified four previously recorded resources on the project site. However, these resources are not identified TCRs. No TCRs listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) were identified in the project site or immediate vicinity.

Therefore, no impacts to TCRs listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources 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. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 153
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The formal notification pursuant to AB 52 is not required for an addendum. However, the City notified a total of 31 tribes and conducted informal consultation with the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation for the Approved Project. The Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, identified the project area within their geographic and ancestral area. Although the 2020 Certified EIR provided TCR mitigation measures, the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation provided their own mitigation measures to protect the potential TCRs that could inadvertently be discovered during the proposed project’s ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation measures provided by the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation have been incorporated into the mitigation measures identified by the 2020 Certified EIR, as applicable. Implementation of TCR-1 and TCR-2, described below, in accordance with General Plan Policies HR-3.3 and HR-4.4, would ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources are less than significant. 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.

5.18.3 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.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer and the City of Corona, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

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,

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

locations of ground-disturbing 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 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 grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete.

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;

2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities on the site take place, the future developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.

TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources or Human Remains.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 155
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.

In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc. grading for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Notification of Tribes: If tribal resources are found, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians shall also be contacted for further evaluation of the resources.

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

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources.

The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Corona with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, basic analysis, and other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

TCR-3 During construction activities, the project applicant shall allow additional archaeological monitors of Native American tribes to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 157

5.19 UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems.

Sewer System
Buildout of the Approved Project would involve the installation of new or expanded sewer laterals and mains in the City and SOI. Full buildout under the proposed General Plan is estimated to generate an increase of total sewer flows in the City and SOI by 4,058,546 gallons per day (GPD) or 12 percent. Existing sewer flows in the City and SOI are 15.2 million gallons per day (MGD), and proposed conditions would be 17.1 MGD.

The 1.8 million gallons per day (MGD) (1,830,240 GPD) change in sewer flows between existing conditions and proposed conditions would not exceed the projected future capacity of the City’s Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs) which have a total future treatment capacity of 18 MGD. Additionally, developer fees and individual required permits and applications would vary be required and reduce impacts. No impact is anticipated.

Water Supply Systems
Buildout of the Approved Project would increase the population in the City and SOI by approximately 11,511 residents. Major deficiencies are not anticipated as the City has confirmed that it would have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed increases in water demands under the buildout of the Approved Project.

Additionally, individual projects would be subject to City permits, fees, and applications in order to ensure that these projects would not pose burdens on the existing infrastructure. No significant impacts from the construction or expansion of water facilities or water supplies are anticipated.

Storm Drainage Systems
Portions of the City and SOI are vulnerable to flooding. To prevent and control flooding, the City prepared a Strom Drain Master Plan which provided three deficiency remedies – installing new systems, replacing systems, and installing parallel systems – to prevent and control flooding. The City DWP provides references on the NPDES residential, industrial/commercial, and construction/ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) guidelines in order to regulate the types of discharge that enter the storm drain system. Future individual developments built according to the proposed General Plan would also require an assessment of how the project would affect the existing and proposed storm drain system. Funding for drainage facilities would come from development impact fees collected under Chapter 16.23, Development Impact Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the State and local policies, including the General Plan, as well as the improvements recommended in the Storm Drain Master Plan Update, would reduce the potential impacts of development on the drainage system within the City of Corona.

Solid Waste
Buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase of 63,900 tons per year (approximately 175 tons per day). The two landfills accepting the majority of landfilled solid waste from Corona have a total remaining

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

capacity of 178,177,170 cubic yards and a combined residual daily disposal capacity of 14,817 tons per day.

Additionally, the County of Riverside is required to maintain 15 years’ identified disposal capacity, or have a plan to transform or divert its waste, pursuant to AB 939. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region for solid waste that would be generated by the buildout of the General Plan, and impacts were less than significant.

5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 159
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.

Water
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. Water is currently provided to the project site via the City of Corona Department of Water and Power’s water mains, which includes a 48-inch water line along Quarry Street and East Grant Boulevard and a 12-inch water line along Rimpau Avenue, with 8-inch water lines on-site (Corona 2022, 2019b).

Water supply to the City of Corona Department of Water and Power (CDWP) is provided via imported water from the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), groundwater from two local basins the Temescal Basin and Bedford-Coldwater Basin, and reclaimed water from landscape irrigation and other nonpotable uses (Corona 2021). Potable water would be provided to the new building through connections to the existing water mains. The proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and CALGreen requirements, such as CALGreen Division 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.19.2(b), the City contains sufficient supplies to provide water services to the City and the proposed project during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive dry years projected through 2045. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water facilities that could cause significant effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

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.

Wastewater
The proposed project includes the construction of an aquatics center, pool, and splash pad. Wastewater services are provided by the water reclamation providers. CDWP provides wastewater services to the project site. The CDWP wastewater system includes 368 miles of gravity sewer pipes, 14 lift stations and force mains, and 3 wastewater treatment plants (Corona 2021). The three water reclaimant facilities treat up to 15.5 million gallons per day (MGD), and the Western Riverside County Wastewater Authority contains 2.37 MGD of capacity for the City (Corona 2019b).

The proposed project would utilize the existing 8- to 12-inch pipes surrounding the project site (Corona 2022).

As further discussed in Section 5.19.2(c), the proposed project would not substantially increase wastewater.

Wastewater generated at the proposed project would be conveyed to the existing sewer lines within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly,

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

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.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 5.10, the proposed project would result in a slight increase in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions with the construction of the proposed project. The stormwater from the proposed project would be conveyed to existing stormwater drains or to the neighboring storm drain system along roadways, to the storm drain channel/Temescal Wash approximately 0.10 miles northeast. The proposed project would not significantly increase or change the stormwater volume, rate, or pattern. Beyond connecting to the existing stormwater system. Impacts would be less than significant. 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.

Electric Power
Electricity is provided by Southern California Edison. The proposed project would connect to existing electric power infrastructure for operation. Although the proposed project would result in a higher electricity demand than existing conditions, the increase would be negligible in Southern California Edison’s capacity. Furthermore, the development of the new concessions buildings and other structures would be required to comply with energy efficiency standards set forth by the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in major construction related to electrical power facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. 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.

Natural Gas
Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company to the City of Corona. As discussed in Section 5.6, Energy, the natural gas demand by the proposed new facilities would total 2,508,299 kilo-British thermal units per year following buildout of the proposed project. While the proposed project would result in an increase in natural gas demand, the new park facility buildings would be consistent with the requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and would generally result in a decrease in per capita natural gas consumption. Compliance with these codes would decrease overall reliance on fossil fuels and increase reliance on renewable energy sources for electricity generation. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would be similar to development contemplated in the 2020 Certified EIR. The proposed project would not result in any impacts with respect to natural gas usage and the project would not require the construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities. 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.

Telecommunications
The proposed project would not require additional telecommunications facilities as the project site would continue to be served by existing providers in the region. The proposed project would not require off-site

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 161
construction or relocation of utilities, and 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) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. CDWP provides potable water and non-potable water to the project site. Sources of potable water for CDWP includes imported water from the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), treated groundwater from two local basins the Temescal Basin and Bedford-Coldwater Bason, reclaimed water from landscape irrigation, and other non-portable uses (Corona 2021). According to the City of Corona’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the City has reliable and adequate supplies to meet water demands during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive dry years projected through 2045. The UWMP discussed having a surplus of water supply in 2045 during a normal year of 7,871 acre-foot per year (AFY) and an excess of 6,643 AFY after five consecutive dry years, thus would have sufficient supplies to prove water for the projected growth of the City and projects.

The proposed community center and aquatics center would increase the demand for water services. The average pool water evaporation rate is about a quarter of an inch of water per day (American Leak Detection 2022).

Assuming two pools, the outdoor water use needed to account for pool water evaporation is approximately 3,111 gpd. Additionally, as seen in Table 15, Proposed Increase in Portable Water Demand, the community center would increase daily water demand by 32,433gpd, for a total increase of approximately 35,544 gpd. The proposed project is expected to increase water daily water demand by 0.10 AFY,6 which would be considered a negligible increase compared to projected excess supplies in water supply.

The proposed project’s water demand would be captured by the projected demand of the UWMP. Furthermore, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of CALGreen 6 1 AFY = 325,851 gallons
32,433 ÷ 325,851 = 0.10 AFY
Table 15 Proposed Increase in Potable Water Demand
Category
Demolished
(SF)
New Facility
(SF)
Net Increase
(SF)
Water Demand Rate
gpd/SF1
Daily Water
Demand (gpd)
Community Center 3,100 60,000 56,090 0.572 32,433
Aquatics Center and
Swimming Pool 19,840 — — 3,1113
Total 3,100 79,840 56,090 — 35,544
Source: CAPCOA 2022
Notes: gpd = gallons per day; SF = square feet
1 350 days per year is used to convert gallons per year to gallons per day. 2 The rate for “Government (Civic Center)” is used. 3 Evaporation off the surface of the pool is calculated by multiplying 0.021 ft/day (half an inch a day) by the surface area of the pool (19,840 square feet) for a total of 416 cubic feet per day of water lost to evaporation. 416 cubic feet per day is 3,111 gpd.

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

Division 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation, including those of Sections 5.303, Indoor Water Use, and

5.304, Outdoor Water Use. Additionally, the proposed aquatics center and fountain would be consistent with the 2020 UWMP policies, which prohibit the overfilling of pools and require the installation of recirculating pumps to limit the waste of water. Based on the City of Coronas UWMP, the City contains adequate water supplies to meet the water demands of the proposed project and the City during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. 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) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. 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. Wastewater services are provided by CDWP to the project site. The CDWP wastewater system includes 368 miles of gravity sewer pipes, 14 lift stations and force mains, and three wastewater treatment plants (Corona 2021). The three water reclaimant facilities treat up to 15.5 million gallons per day (MGD), and the Western Riverside County Wastewater Authority provides 2.37 MGD of capacity for the City (Corona 2019b). The proposed project would utilize the existing 8- to 12-inch pipes surrounding the project site (Corona 2022). The stormwater and wastewater flows from the project site are expected to marginally increase but would not be enough to require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Though the proposed project will increase employee capacity at the project site, which would increase wastewater generation, the increase would not overburden the wastewater treatment provider that serves the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. During construction, the proposed project would generate some demolition debris from clearance and waste debris. Construction solid waste generation would be minimal due to the demolition of small structures and, CALGreen Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

The City of Corna contrasts with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) for trash and recycling services. The proposed project site would continue to operate as a park facility. However, the proposed project would construct a larger community center with an anticipated increase in events and an aquatics center, which would increase the amount of solid waste generated by Corona City Park. Solid waste generated in the City of Corona is

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 163
transported to two landfills, the El Sobrante and Olinda Alpha Landfill (Cal Recycle 2024). The El Sobrante Landfill in the City of Corona will receive the solid waste from the project site. The Sobrante Landfill contains a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 cubic years as of April 2018.

Table 16 Landfill Capacity
Landfill Name
Current Remaining
Capacity
(tons) 1
Maximum Daily
Disposal Capacity
(tons)
Average Daily
Disposal
(tons)2
Residual Daily
Disposal Capacity
(tons)
Annual
Disposal
Capacity
(tons)
Estimated
Close Date
El Sobrante
Landfill 143,977,170 16,054 5,599 10,455 3,136,500 2051 Sources: CalRecycle 2019b, 2019c.
1 A Volume-to-Weight conversion rate of 2,000 lbs/cubic yard (1 tons/cubic yard) for “Compacted - MSW Large Landfill with Best Management Practices” is used as per CalRecyle’s 2016 Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201604/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf. 2 Average daily disposal is calculated based on 300 operating days per year. The facility is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays.

Table 17 Proposed Increase in Solid Waste Generation
Category
Demolished
(SF)
Expanded
(SF)
New Facility
(SF)
Generation Rate
(tons/1,000 SF/year)
Total
(tons/year)
Community Center 3,100 60,000 56,090 5.71 320
Aquatics Center
and
Swimming
Pool
19,840 5.72 113
Total 3,100 79,840 56,090 — 433
Source: CAPCOA 2022q and 2022b.

Notes: SF = square feet
1 The rate for “Government (Civic Center)” is used. 2 The rate for “Recreational Swimming Pool” is used.

As demonstrated in Table 16 and Table 17, there is adequate landfill capacity for the proposed project’s forecast solid waste, and project development would not require additional landfill capacity at the landfill serving the City. The total amount of solid waste expected to be generated under the proposed project would be minimal compared to the annual disposal capacity of the landfill serving the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Solid waste would be generated during the construction and operation of the proposed project.

The proposed project would comply with all regulations pertaining to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and local recycling and waste programs. The proposed project would comply

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

with all applicable laws and regulations and make every effort to reuse and/or recycle the construction debris that would otherwise be taken to a landfill. Section 5.408 of CALGreen requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Hazardous waste, such as paint used during construction, would be disposed of only at facilities permitted to receive them in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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.

5.19.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems were outlined in the 2020 Certified EIR.

CITY PARK REVIT A LIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis
June 2026 Page 165

5.20 WILDFIRE

5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2020 Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project resulted in less than significant impacts to wildfire.

Emergency Evacuation Plan
The City of Corona has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure the effective allocation of resources for the maximum benefit during a time of emergency, and to identify local hazards and provide mitigation measures to address these hazards, respectively. Buildout of the Approved Project would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes in the City or SOI identified in the City’s LHMP and EOP. The City also has established evacuation plans and protocols to ensure the safe and orderly notification and evacuation of people in Corona should the need arise. Future development would be required to comply with applicable local and State standards, fire and building codes, and to ensure adequate access project would be reviewed by the CFD prior to approval.

Adherence to local and State policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Exacerbate Wildfire Risk
The City of Corona and its SOI are vulnerable to and at significant risk of wildfires. The City has approximately 9,300 housing units and 3 million square feet of office, commercial, and industrial buildings in the very high FHSZ. Development associated with the buildout of the General Plan would result in new development within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and would place more assets in the very high FHSZ. Future development would be required to adhere to state and local codes (California Fire Code, CAL FIRE fire safe design requirements, City Fire and Public Works Standards, and other standards). Because development in the WUI presents challenges for fire protection and suppression, development in these areas are required to abide by the CFD’s Structure Protection Plan (SPP), which addresses fuel modification requirements. With adherence to these building practices and fuel modification requirements in the SPP, development associated with the General Plan would not exacerbate risk.

Associated Infrastructure
Buildout of the General Plan would result in additional infrastructure, including roadways and transmission lines, in undeveloped areas of the City and SOI in order to serve new development. Some of this infrastructure would be placed with the very high FHSZ. To protect development in the very high FHSZ, the City requires adherence to a wide range of state and local codes (California Fire Code, CAL FIRE fire safe design requirements, City Fire and Public Works Standards, and other standards), including SPP requirements for new infrastructure. With adherence to these building practices and fuel modification requirements in the SPP, infrastructure associated with the General Plan buildout would not exacerbate risk.

Expose People or Structures to Significant Risk
Wildfires on hillsides can create hazards in the form of debris or mudflows, which occurs most frequently on hillsides that have little to no vegetation and are most common following wildfires. As identified above, to

CITY PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF CORONA

5. Environmental Analysis

protect development in the very high FHSZ, with adherence to these building practices and fuel modification requirements in the SPP, impacts associated with the General Plan buildout would not exacerbate risk.

Areas of the city adjacent to the Santa Ana River, Temescal Creek, and Mabey Canyon Wash are designated as Flood Zone A, a 100-year flood zone, and other areas of the city are within a 500-year flood zone. Future development would be required to meet federal floodplain regulations, including that the lowest floor of the structure is raised above a 100-year based flood elevation. Therefore, impacts to the exposure of structures or people to flooding as a result of post-fire slope instability would be less than significant.

Marginally stable slopes may be subject to landslides caused by earthquakes. The terrain of the City is varied, ranging from relatively flat to hilly. Grading permits for hillside developments must have an engineering geology report prepared and submitted to the City. Therefore, impacts as a result of post-fire slope instability would be less than significant.

5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X

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

~ 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-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-Corona- 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
July 27, 2026
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 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