DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # OV-07
B1. Historic Name: West Ontario Avenue
B2. Common Name: West Ontario Avenue
B3. Original Use: Road B4. Present Use: Road
*B5. Architectural Style: N/A
*B6. Construction History:
N/A
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme: Road Developemt Area: Corona Period of Significance: 1920s Property Type: Road Applicable Criteria: N/A The following Significance Statement provides historic contexts to support an evaluation of OV-07 using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and City of Corona Historic Landmark criteria. (See continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*Date of Evaluation: December 7, 2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance (continued):
Historic Context
City of Corona History
As early as 1825, brothers Bernardo and Tomás Yorba used the land encompassing the Project area for cattle grazing, calling it La Sierra, although they held no legal title. In 1846, shortly before California became part of the United States, Mexican Governor Pio Pico signed two grants for adjacent lands along the Santa Ana River, dividing La Sierra in two: Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda). These grants, to Bernardo Yorba and Tomás Yorba’s widow, Doña Vicenta Sepulveda, respectively, comprised a total of eight leagues (approximately 35,560 acres). Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) consisted of the southwestern half of the former La Sierra, and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda) comprised the northeastern half. The present-day city of Corona is situated on former Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) land (Gunther 1984). The Mexican Period, which began with independence from Spain in 1821, continued until the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the Territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 led to statehood in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos, making it difficult for their owners to pay the new American taxes on their thousands of acres. Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived Anglo-Americans. Foreclosures and land sales eventually resulted in the transfer of most of the land grants into the hands of Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) was eventually surveyed and was patented at 17,787 acres on February 4, 1875. Eleven years later, in February 1886, an entrepreneur from Iowa named Robert B. Taylor formed the South Riverside Land & Water Company and purchased 11,500 acres of Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) for $109,800. Taylor and his board of directors, composed of Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, investors Adolph Rimpau, A. S. Garretson, George L. Joy, and former Iowa governor Samuel Merrill, bought water rights in nearby Temescal Valley to irrigate their land, and hired Anaheim engineer H. Clay Kellogg to survey a townsite they called South Riverside. From a variety of potential plans, the board and Kellogg decided on a traditional grid of streets within a wide, circular thoroughfare, nearly one mile in diameter, called Grand Boulevard. Many lots in South Riverside were sold and the South Riverside post office was established in 1887 to serve the rapidly growing population. Grand Boulevard was soon lined with two-story mansions, schools, churches, and businesses. Most of the new residents owned or worked in the orange and lemon groves that were rapidly spreading across the acres of land surrounding the community (Freel 2011; Gunther 1984).
In 1887, just as South Riverside began to grow, the California Central Railroad Company (CCRR), a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad, completed a line to Los Angeles from San Bernardino via Riverside, South Riverside, and Orange. In 1889, the CCRR and another AT&SF subsidiary, the California Southern Railroad Company, were merged into the Southern California Railway Company. which was purchased by the AT&SF in 1906 (Bryant 1974; Gunther 1984; Robertson 1998). The railroad tracks, which passed just north of the great circle formed by Grand Avenue, became the site of the city’s industrial buildings and citrus packing houses (Freel 2011). South Riverside was nicknamed “Queen Colony” and “Circle City” by many of its early citizens, who resented that its formal name implied that it was merely a suburb of Riverside, the larger city to the north. Around 1889, residents began to agitate for a change of name. A vote was held in 1894, with fanciful names like “Lemonton,” “Grevilla,” “Hesperides,” and “Circleville” up for choosing. The original name was retained until 1896, when on July 13, the settlement was incorporated as the City of Corona. The new name was the suggestion of Baron Harden Hickey, an adventurer, eccentric character, owner of the nearby Cerreto Ranch, and friend of the city’s founder, Robert Taylor. Immediately, the name of the local railroad station was changed from South Riverside to Corona, and the South Riverside Bee newspaper was renamed the Corona Courier. The post office was changed to Corona in 1897 (Gunther 1984). By the turn of the twentieth century, the population of Corona was more than 1,400. Five thousand acres of citrus groves covered the land surrounding the city by 1912, and the packing houses along the AT&SF tracks at the north end of town shipped more fruit than those of any other southern California city. By the 1950s, Corona was known as the “lemon capital of the world,” exporting lemon juice, citric acid, lemon oil, and pectin, in addition to whole lemons, all over the globe. The orange and lemon industries were the leading employers in the Corona area through the 1960s (Freel 2011).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
After World War II, residential development began to spread from the City’s center into the citrus groves, as the value of real estate exceeded the potential profits from fruit crops. By the 1970s, housing tracts had displaced so many Corona lemon and orange groves that the demand for fruit could not be met by local harvests. Sunkist closed its Corona packing houses in 1982, and other producers soon followed. Agriculture has continued to diminish in the last three decades (Freel 2011). By 1954, the population of Corona was more than 11,000. State Route 91, the Riverside Freeway, cut through the north edge of the Grand Boulevard circle in 1962, initiating a period of growth and downtown renewal that lasted through the 1970s. I-15 was completed through the east side of the City in 1989. As suburban developments such as Corona Hills, Sierra del Oro, and South Corona have grown up around the original central town in recent years, the City has become a bedroom community (Freel 2011). The population of Corona is now over 160,000 (City of Corona 2018).
Roads in California
During the second half of the 19th century, a period of rapid railroad development in the United States, public roads in California and other western states became neglected and degraded. By 1900, “the nation with the greatest railway system in the world had the worst roads” (Johnson 1990:139). Interest in road building revived around the turn of the century when farmers and ranchers, many disillusioned with high railroad rates, began asking county officials for better surface roads. They were joined by millions of bicyclists who called for smoother roads in town and in the countryside. Joining forces, farmers, ranchers, and bicyclists organized local, state, and national “good roads” campaigns. In response, the federal government established the Office of Road Inquiry in the Department of Agriculture to study new road building techniques (Jackson 1998).
Dusty during summer months and muddy during the winter and spring, unpaved roads played havoc with wagons, carriages, and bicycles. Plank roads made from lumber first appeared in California during the 1850s. Gravel roads and macadam, a form of compacted gravel coated with oil, came into use during the late 19th century. Finally, after 1900, concrete roads topped by a mixture of bitumen, aggregate, and sand called asphalt became the standard modern road surface. Durable, smooth, and impervious to water, asphalt withstood winter weather, reduced vehicular wear and tear, and better facilitated drainage (Kostof 1992).
After 1910, as automobile usage surged, and as suburbanization occurred on the edges of town and cities in California and elsewhere, city planners began articulating a hierarchy of streets to distinguish residential roads, collector roads, arterial roads, and highways, each handling progressively higher volumes of traffic. Through the remainder of the twentieth century, as commercial and residential growth supplanted farms and ranches on the edges of California towns and cities, many rural county roads became adapted to suit the new suburban landscape. In many places, older two-lane rural roads became two- and four-lane suburban arterial streets lined with shopping centers and parking lots; others became two-lane collector streets lined with new residential subdivisions.
In 1936, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a New Deal program designed to boost mortgage lending in the United States, developed design standards for new suburban residential streets. FHA standards called for quieter streets with T-intersections, cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear patterns in an effort to slow traffic. With few exceptions, homebuilders in California and other western states after 1940 adhered to FHA standards; homebuilders also eliminated alleys behind residential properties in favor driveways leading to street-facing garages (Kostof 1992). After 1960, homebuilders also began creating large master planned suburban developments featuring winding arterial parkways deliberately separated from residential zones to permit higher speeds.
Roads in Corona
Roads first developed in Corona’s historic core on Grand Boulevard, a circle street that is 3 miles in circumference, 1 mile in diameter, and 100-feet wide. Two principal thoroughfares, Main Street (north–south) and Sixth Street (east– west), intersect at the center of the circle. Inside the circle, a grid of pedestrian-oriented, rectangular blocks and streets create neighborhoods and small commercial nodes. Most residential neighborhoods in the historic core contain single-family and low-density multifamily homes, most of which are accessed by rear alleys (City of Corona 2021).
Residential streets outside the historic core serve typical suburban neighborhoods built after World War II that are characterized by cul-de-sacs and wide curvilinear streets. Community-serving commercial centers exist at major street intersections of the primary entries and in most neighborhoods (City of Corona 2021).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Roads within the Project Area include West Ontario Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Buena Vista Avenue.
While Riverside County crews constructed all four roads circa 1920s, research found little indication that they shared an association with the Good Roads Movement that lasted until the late 1920s. A 1948 aerial image depicts all four roads in their current confirmation except for S. Lincoln Avenue which was realigned roughly 600 feet south of W.
Ontario Avenue in the 1990s. Riverside County paved all four roads during 1970s according to aerial images. From at least the 1940s to the 1960s, these roads served the surrounding agriculture activities but by 1970s and 1980s suburban single-family neighborhoods developed adjacent to these roads (City of Corona 2021; National Environmental Title Research LLC [NETR] 2023).
Evaluation
West Ontario Avenue (Resource OV-07) does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, or as a City of Corona Historic Landmark, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated below.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
West Ontario Avenue in Corona provided residents of Corona with access to other nearby rural communities in Riverside County, as well as access to rural properties in southern Corona. Furthermore, the construction of West Ontario Avenue did not mark a milestone in the Good Roads Movement in Riverside County. There is nothing in the archival record to suggest that West Ontario Avenue is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Riverside County history. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Riverside County crews built and maintained West Ontario Avenue. However, there is nothing in the archival record to suggest that it is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
As a conventional five-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, West Ontario Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of West Ontario Avenue is expressed in its built form and in the historical record. It has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Though West Ontario Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s two-lane dirt road to a five-lane paved road. In addition, the setting has completely changed from primarily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, West Ontario Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
17.63.050 Corona Register – Landmark listing criteria.
This section evaluates the resource against the Corona Register’s Landmark listing criteria (Section 1.3.4)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Criterion A, 1. Though the subject road is greater than 50 years old, research found no indication that the road is of exceptional importance.
Criterion A, 2. Though the subject road is reflective of road development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about its development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar examples exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3a. Though the subject road is reflective of transportation development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about the road’s development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3b. As stated in the NRHP and CRHR evaluation above, the road is not associated with the lives of persons significant in Corona’s past.
Criterion A, 3c. As a conventional five-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, West Ontario Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion A, 3d. The subject road is a commonplace street in Corona, and there is no evidence that it reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history.
Criterion A, 3e. Research found no evidence to suggest that the subject road is the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
Criterion A, 3f. The subject road represents a typical example of its type and does not exemplify one of the best remaining architectural styles or types in a neighborhood, nor does it contain outstanding elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship of a particular historic period.
Criterion A, 3g. The subject road is not in a unique location.
Criterion A, 3h. The subject road is not a potential source of archeological or paleontological interest.
Criterion A, 3i. There is no evidence that the subject road contains a natural setting or feature that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of Corona.
Criterion A, 4. Though West Ontario Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s two-lane dirt road to a five-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, West Ontario Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register. (C) ) A reconstructed improvement shall be eligible if the reconstruction is historically accurate, the improvement is presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and no other original improvement survives that has the same association.
Criterion C. The subject road is not a reconstructed improvement.
Criterion D. The subject road is not a site, improvement, or natural feature that is intended to be primarily commemorative.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B12. References (continued):
City of Corona. 2021. 2020–2040 General Plan - Housing Element 2021-2029. November 3, 2021 _____. 2018. History of Corona, https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/library-recreationservices/library/heritage-room/history-of-corona. Accessed December 6, 2023.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Freel, G. S. 2011. The History of Corona. Corona Public Library, Corona, California.
Gunther, J. D. 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. 1998. Roads and Highways. In The New Encyclopedia of the American West, edited by Howard R. Lamar. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Johnson, Hildegard Binder. 1990. Towards a National Landscape. In The Making of the American Landscape, edited by Michael P. Conzen. Routledge, New York.Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H.
Colten, pp. 81-88. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kostof, Spiro. 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History. Bulfinch Press, Boston, MA.
Monkkonen, Eric H. 1988. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns, 1780-1980. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Ontario
Avenue
ECORP: N:\2023\2023-213 Ontario Avenue Widening at Lincoln Ave\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Ontario Ave CRM.aprx/CRM_DPR_LOCATION_Letter (2022)-mwilliams 12/12/2023 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
*Map Name: Corona South, CA and Corona North, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:1994 (p.r.1997), 1975
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: South Lincoln Avenue
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Corona South Date: 1967 T04S; R07W; Section 1 S.B.B.M. c. Address: City: Corona Zip: 92882
d. UTM: 11 S 445789 mE 3746568 mN
e. Other Locational Data: N/A
*P3a. Description:
South Lincoln Avenue (Resource OV-08) is an approximately 1,300-foot-long, north–south-oriented segment road in Corona. It is an 80-foot-wide, four-lane section line road paved with asphalt. The road was built in c. 1920 and was paved during the 1970s; a c. 1980s section extends south of West Ontario Avenue. The western and eastern sides of the road include concrete gutters and bike lanes. It also features modern reflective speed bumps, reflective paint (including white side-stripes), and turn arrows. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP37. Highway/trail
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
Overview of Lincoln Avenue
View south, December 6, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
c. 1920 (Topographic Map)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Riverside County
4040 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P8. Recorded by:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*P9. Date Recorded:
December 6, 2023
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resources Investigation and Built Environment Evaluation for the Ontario Road Widening at Lincoln Avenue, Riverside County, California. Prepared for City of Corona *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # OV-08
B1. Historic Name: Lincoln Avenue
B2. Common Name: Lincoln Avenue
B3. Original Use: Road B4. Present Use: Road
*B5. Architectural Style: N/A
*B6. Construction History:
N/A
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme: Road Area: Corona
Period of Significance: 1920s Property Type: Road Applicable Criteria: N/A The following Significance Statement provides historic contexts to support an evaluation of OV-08 using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and City of Corona Historic Landmark criteria. (See continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*Date of Evaluation: December 7, 2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance (continued):
Historic Context
City of Corona History
As early as 1825, brothers Bernardo and Tomás Yorba used the land encompassing the Project area for cattle grazing, calling it La Sierra, although they held no legal title. In 1846, shortly before California became part of the United States, Mexican Governor Pio Pico signed two grants for adjacent lands along the Santa Ana River, dividing La Sierra in two: Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda). These grants, to Bernardo Yorba and Tomás Yorba’s widow, Doña Vicenta Sepulveda, respectively, comprised a total of eight leagues (approximately 35,560 acres). Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) consisted of the southwestern half of the former La Sierra, and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda) comprised the northeastern half. The present-day city of Corona is situated on former Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) land (Gunther 1984). The Mexican Period, which began with independence from Spain in 1821, continued until the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the Territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 led to statehood in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos, making it difficult for their owners to pay the new American taxes on their thousands of acres. Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived Anglo-Americans. Foreclosures and land sales eventually resulted in the transfer of most of the land grants into the hands of Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) was eventually surveyed and was patented at 17,787 acres on February 4, 1875. Eleven years later, in February 1886, an entrepreneur from Iowa named Robert B. Taylor formed the South Riverside Land & Water Company and purchased 11,500 acres of Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) for $109,800. Taylor and his board of directors, composed of Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, investors Adolph Rimpau, A. S. Garretson, George L. Joy, and former Iowa governor Samuel Merrill, bought water rights in nearby Temescal Valley to irrigate their land, and hired Anaheim engineer H. Clay Kellogg to survey a townsite they called South Riverside. From a variety of potential plans, the board and Kellogg decided on a traditional grid of streets within a wide, circular thoroughfare, nearly one mile in diameter, called Grand Boulevard. Many lots in South Riverside were sold and the South Riverside post office was established in 1887 to serve the rapidly growing population. Grand Boulevard was soon lined with two-story mansions, schools, churches, and businesses. Most of the new residents owned or worked in the orange and lemon groves that were rapidly spreading across the acres of land surrounding the community (Freel 2011; Gunther 1984).
In 1887, just as South Riverside began to grow, the California Central Railroad Company (CCRR), a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad, completed a line to Los Angeles from San Bernardino via Riverside, South Riverside, and Orange. In 1889, the CCRR and another AT&SF subsidiary, the California Southern Railroad Company, were merged into the Southern California Railway Company. which was purchased by the AT&SF in 1906 (Bryant 1974; Gunther 1984; Robertson 1998). The railroad tracks, which passed just north of the great circle formed by Grand Avenue, became the site of the city’s industrial buildings and citrus packing houses (Freel 2011). South Riverside was nicknamed “Queen Colony” and “Circle City” by many of its early citizens, who resented that its formal name implied that it was merely a suburb of Riverside, the larger city to the north. Around 1889, residents began to agitate for a change of name. A vote was held in 1894, with fanciful names like “Lemonton,” “Grevilla,” “Hesperides,” and “Circleville” up for choosing. The original name was retained until 1896, when on July 13, the settlement was incorporated as the City of Corona. The new name was the suggestion of Baron Harden Hickey, an adventurer, eccentric character, owner of the nearby Cerreto Ranch, and friend of the city’s founder, Robert Taylor. Immediately, the name of the local railroad station was changed from South Riverside to Corona, and the South Riverside Bee newspaper was renamed the Corona Courier. The post office was changed to Corona in 1897 (Gunther 1984). By the turn of the twentieth century, the population of Corona was more than 1,400. Five thousand acres of citrus groves covered the land surrounding the city by 1912, and the packing houses along the AT&SF tracks at the north end of town shipped more fruit than those of any other southern California city. By the 1950s, Corona was known as the “lemon capital of the world,” exporting lemon juice, citric acid, lemon oil, and pectin, in addition to whole lemons, all over the globe. The orange and lemon industries were the leading employers in the Corona area through the 1960s (Freel 2011).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
After World War II, residential development began to spread from the City’s center into the citrus groves, as the value of real estate exceeded the potential profits from fruit crops. By the 1970s, housing tracts had displaced so many Corona lemon and orange groves that the demand for fruit could not be met by local harvests. Sunkist closed its Corona packing houses in 1982, and other producers soon followed. Agriculture has continued to diminish in the last three decades (Freel 2011). By 1954, the population of Corona was more than 11,000. State Route 91, the Riverside Freeway, cut through the north edge of the Grand Boulevard circle in 1962, initiating a period of growth and downtown renewal that lasted through the 1970s. I-15 was completed through the east side of the City in 1989. As suburban developments such as Corona Hills, Sierra del Oro, and South Corona have grown up around the original central town in recent years, the City has become a bedroom community (Freel 2011). The population of Corona is now over 160,000 (City of Corona 2018).
Roads in California
During the second half of the 19th century, a period of rapid railroad development in the United States, public roads in California and other western states became neglected and degraded. By 1900, “the nation with the greatest railway system in the world had the worst roads” (Johnson 1990:139). Interest in road building revived around the turn of the century when farmers and ranchers, many disillusioned with high railroad rates, began asking county officials for better surface roads. They were joined by millions of bicyclists who called for smoother roads in town and in the countryside. Joining forces, farmers, ranchers, and bicyclists organized local, state, and national “good roads” campaigns. In response, the federal government established the Office of Road Inquiry in the Department of Agriculture to study new road building techniques (Jackson 1998).
Dusty during summer months and muddy during the winter and spring, unpaved roads played havoc with wagons, carriages, and bicycles. Plank roads made from lumber first appeared in California during the 1850s. Gravel roads and macadam, a form of compacted gravel coated with oil, came into use during the late 19th century. Finally, after 1900, concrete roads topped by a mixture of bitumen, aggregate, and sand called asphalt became the standard modern road surface. Durable, smooth, and impervious to water, asphalt withstood winter weather, reduced vehicular wear and tear, and better facilitated drainage (Kostof 1992).
After 1910, as automobile usage surged, and as suburbanization occurred on the edges of town and cities in California and elsewhere, city planners began articulating a hierarchy of streets to distinguish residential roads, collector roads, arterial roads, and highways, each handling progressively higher volumes of traffic. Through the remainder of the twentieth century, as commercial and residential growth supplanted farms and ranches on the edges of California towns and cities, many rural county roads became adapted to suit the new suburban landscape. In many places, older two-lane rural roads became two- and four-lane suburban arterial streets lined with shopping centers and parking lots; others became two-lane collector streets lined with new residential subdivisions.
In 1936, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a New Deal program designed to boost mortgage lending in the United States, developed design standards for new suburban residential streets. FHA standards called for quieter streets with T-intersections, cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear patterns in an effort to slow traffic. With few exceptions, homebuilders in California and other western states after 1940 adhered to FHA standards; homebuilders also eliminated alleys behind residential properties in favor driveways leading to street-facing garages (Kostof 1992). After 1960, homebuilders also began creating large master planned suburban developments featuring winding arterial parkways deliberately separated from residential zones to permit higher speeds.
Roads in Corona
Roads first developed in Corona’s historic core on Grand Boulevard, a circle street that is 3 miles in circumference, 1 mile in diameter, and 100-feet wide. Two principal thoroughfares, Main Street (north–south) and Sixth Street (east– west), intersect at the center of the circle. Inside the circle, a grid of pedestrian-oriented, rectangular blocks and streets create neighborhoods and small commercial nodes. Most residential neighborhoods in the historic core contain single-family and low-density multifamily homes, most of which are accessed by rear alleys (City of Corona 2021).
Residential streets outside the historic core serve typical suburban neighborhoods built after World War II that are characterized by cul-de-sacs and wide curvilinear streets. Community-serving commercial centers exist at major street intersections of the primary entries and in most neighborhoods (City of Corona 2021).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Roads within the Project Area include West Ontario Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Buena Vista Avenue.
While Riverside County crews constructed all four roads circa 1920s, research found little indication that they shared an association with the Good Roads Movement that lasted until the late 1920s. A 1948 aerial image depicts all four roads in their current confirmation except for S. Lincoln Avenue which was realigned roughly 600 feet south of W.
Ontario Avenue in the 1990s. Riverside County paved all four roads during 1970s according to aerial images. From at least the 1940s to the 1960s, these roads served the surrounding agriculture activities but by 1970s and 1980s suburban single-family neighborhoods developed adjacent to these roads (City of Corona 2021; National Environmental Title Research LLC [NETR] 2023).
Evaluation
South Lincoln Avenue (Resource OV-08) does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, or as a City of Corona Historic Landmark, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated below.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
South Lincoln Avenue in Corona provided residents of Corona with access to other nearby rural communities in Riverside County. It did not, however, function as a major road for Corona residents because it was a one-lane dirt road until the 1970s. Furthermore, the construction of South Lincoln Avenue did not mark a milestone in the Good Roads Movement in Riverside County. There is nothing in the archival record to suggest that South Lincoln Avenue is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Riverside County history. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Riverside County crews built and maintained South Lincoln Avenue. However, there is nothing in the archival record to suggest that it is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
As a conventional four-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, South Lincoln Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of South Lincoln Avenue is expressed in its built form and in the historical record. It has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Though South Lincoln Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a four-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, South Lincoln Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
17.63.050 Corona Register – Landmark listing criteria.
Criterion A, 1. Though the subject road is greater than 50 years old, ECORP found no indication that the road is of exceptional importance.
Criterion A, 2. Though the subject road is reflective of road development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about its development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3a. Though the subject road is reflective of transportation development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about the road’s development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3b. As stated in the NRHP and CRHR evaluation above, the road is not associated with the lives of persons significant in Corona’s past.
Criterion A, 3c. As a conventional four-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, South Lincoln Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion A, 3d. The subject road is a commonplace street in Corona, and there is no evidence that it reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history.
Criterion A, 3e. Research found no evidence to suggest that the subject road is the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
Criterion A, 3f. The subject road represents a typical example of its type and does not exemplify one of the best remaining architectural styles or types in a neighborhood, nor does it contain outstanding elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship of a particular historic period.
Criterion A, 3g. The subject road is not in a unique location.
Criterion A, 3h. The subject road is not a potential source of archeological or paleontological interest.
Criterion A, 3i. There is no evidence that the subject road contains a natural setting or feature that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of Corona.
Criterion A, 4. Though South Lincoln Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a four-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, South Lincoln Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
Criterion C. The subject road is not a reconstructed improvement.
Criterion D. The subject road is not a site, improvement, or natural feature that is intended to be primarily commemorative.
B12. References (continued):
City of Corona. 2021. 2020–2040 General Plan - Housing Element 2021-2029. November 3, 2021 _____. 2018. History of Corona, https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/library-recreationservices/library/heritage-room/history-of-corona. Accessed December 6, 2023.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Freel, G. S. 2011. The History of Corona. Corona Public Library, Corona, California.
Gunther, J. D. 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. 1998. Roads and Highways. In The New Encyclopedia of the American West, edited by Howard R. Lamar. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Johnson, Hildegard Binder. 1990. Towards a National Landscape. In The Making of the American Landscape, edited by Michael P. Conzen. Routledge, New York.Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H.
Colten, pp. 81-88. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kostof, Spiro. 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History. Bulfinch Press, Boston, MA.
Monkkonen, Eric H. 1988. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns, 1780-1980. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Lincoln
Avenue
ECORP: N:\2023\2023-213 Ontario Avenue Widening at Lincoln Ave\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Ontario Ave CRM.aprx/CRM_DPR_LOCATION_Letter (2022)-mwilliams 12/12/2023 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
*Map Name: Corona South, CA and Corona North, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:1994 (p.r.1997), 1975
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: Oak Avenue
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Corona South Date: 1967 T04S; R07W; Section 0 S.B.B.M. c. Address: City: Corona Zip: 92882
d. UTM: 11 S 445789 mE 3746568 mN
e. Other Locational Data: N/A
*P3a. Description:
Oak Avenue (Resource OV-09) is an approximately 170-foot-long, north–south-oriented segment road in Corona. It is a 50-foot-wide, two-lane section line road paved with asphalt. The road was built in c. 1920 and was paved during the 1970s. The western and eastern sides of the road include concrete gutters. It also features modern reflective speed bumps, reflective paint (including white side-stripes), and turn arrows.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP37. Highway/trail
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
Overview of Oak Avenue
View southwest, December 6,
2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
c. 1920 (Topographic Map)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Riverside County
4040 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P8. Recorded by:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*P9. Date Recorded:
December 6, 2023
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resources Investigation and Built Environment Evaluation for the Ontario Road Widening at Lincoln Avenue, Riverside County, California. Prepared for City of Corona *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # OV-09
B1. Historic Name: Oak Avenue
B2. Common Name: Oak Avenue
B3. Original Use: Road B4. Present Use: Road
*B5. Architectural Style: N/A
*B6. Construction History:
N/A
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme: Road Area: Corona
Period of Significance: 1920s Property Type: Road Applicable Criteria: N/A The following Significance Statement provides historic contexts to support an evaluation of OV-09 using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and City of Corona Historic Landmark criteria. (See continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*Date of Evaluation: December 7, 2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance (continued):
Historic Context
City of Corona History
As early as 1825, brothers Bernardo and Tomás Yorba used the land encompassing the Project area for cattle grazing, calling it La Sierra, although they held no legal title. In 1846, shortly before California became part of the United States, Mexican Governor Pio Pico signed two grants for adjacent lands along the Santa Ana River, dividing La Sierra in two: Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda). These grants, to Bernardo Yorba and Tomás Yorba’s widow, Doña Vicenta Sepulveda, respectively, comprised a total of eight leagues (approximately 35,560 acres). Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) consisted of the southwestern half of the former La Sierra, and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda) comprised the northeastern half. The present-day city of Corona is situated on former Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) land (Gunther 1984). The Mexican Period, which began with independence from Spain in 1821, continued until the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the Territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 led to statehood in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos, making it difficult for their owners to pay the new American taxes on their thousands of acres. Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived Anglo-Americans. Foreclosures and land sales eventually resulted in the transfer of most of the land grants into the hands of Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) was eventually surveyed and was patented at 17,787 acres on February 4, 1875. Eleven years later, in February 1886, an entrepreneur from Iowa named Robert B. Taylor formed the South Riverside Land & Water Company and purchased 11,500 acres of Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) for $109,800. Taylor and his board of directors, composed of Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, investors Adolph Rimpau, A. S. Garretson, George L. Joy, and former Iowa governor Samuel Merrill, bought water rights in nearby Temescal Valley to irrigate their land, and hired Anaheim engineer H. Clay Kellogg to survey a townsite they called South Riverside. From a variety of potential plans, the board and Kellogg decided on a traditional grid of streets within a wide, circular thoroughfare, nearly one mile in diameter, called Grand Boulevard. Many lots in South Riverside were sold and the South Riverside post office was established in 1887 to serve the rapidly growing population. Grand Boulevard was soon lined with two-story mansions, schools, churches, and businesses. Most of the new residents owned or worked in the orange and lemon groves that were rapidly spreading across the acres of land surrounding the community (Freel 2011; Gunther 1984).
In 1887, just as South Riverside began to grow, the California Central Railroad Company (CCRR), a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad, completed a line to Los Angeles from San Bernardino via Riverside, South Riverside, and Orange. In 1889, the CCRR and another AT&SF subsidiary, the California Southern Railroad Company, were merged into the Southern California Railway Company. which was purchased by the AT&SF in 1906 (Bryant 1974; Gunther 1984; Robertson 1998). The railroad tracks, which passed just north of the great circle formed by Grand Avenue, became the site of the city’s industrial buildings and citrus packing houses (Freel 2011). South Riverside was nicknamed “Queen Colony” and “Circle City” by many of its early citizens, who resented that its formal name implied that it was merely a suburb of Riverside, the larger city to the north. Around 1889, residents began to agitate for a change of name. A vote was held in 1894, with fanciful names like “Lemonton,” “Grevilla,” “Hesperides,” and “Circleville” up for choosing. The original name was retained until 1896, when on July 13, the settlement was incorporated as the City of Corona. The new name was the suggestion of Baron Harden Hickey, an adventurer, eccentric character, owner of the nearby Cerreto Ranch, and friend of the city’s founder, Robert Taylor. Immediately, the name of the local railroad station was changed from South Riverside to Corona, and the South Riverside Bee newspaper was renamed the Corona Courier. The post office was changed to Corona in 1897 (Gunther 1984). By the turn of the twentieth century, the population of Corona was more than 1,400. Five thousand acres of citrus groves covered the land surrounding the city by 1912, and the packing houses along the AT&SF tracks at the north end of town shipped more fruit than those of any other southern California city. By the 1950s, Corona was known as the “lemon capital of the world,” exporting lemon juice, citric acid, lemon oil, and pectin, in addition to whole lemons, all over the globe. The orange and lemon industries were the leading employers in the Corona area through the 1960s (Freel 2011).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
After World War II, residential development began to spread from the City’s center into the citrus groves, as the value of real estate exceeded the potential profits from fruit crops. By the 1970s, housing tracts had displaced so many Corona lemon and orange groves that the demand for fruit could not be met by local harvests. Sunkist closed its Corona packing houses in 1982, and other producers soon followed. Agriculture has continued to diminish in the last three decades (Freel 2011). By 1954, the population of Corona was more than 11,000. State Route 91, the Riverside Freeway, cut through the north edge of the Grand Boulevard circle in 1962, initiating a period of growth and downtown renewal that lasted through the 1970s. I-15 was completed through the east side of the City in 1989. As suburban developments such as Corona Hills, Sierra del Oro, and South Corona have grown up around the original central town in recent years, the City has become a bedroom community (Freel 2011). The population of Corona is now over 160,000 (City of Corona 2018).
Roads in California
During the second half of the 19th century, a period of rapid railroad development in the United States, public roads in California and other western states became neglected and degraded. By 1900, “the nation with the greatest railway system in the world had the worst roads” (Johnson 1990:139). Interest in road building revived around the turn of the century when farmers and ranchers, many disillusioned with high railroad rates, began asking county officials for better surface roads. They were joined by millions of bicyclists who called for smoother roads in town and in the countryside. Joining forces, farmers, ranchers, and bicyclists organized local, state, and national “good roads” campaigns. In response, the federal government established the Office of Road Inquiry in the Department of Agriculture to study new road building techniques (Jackson 1998).
Dusty during summer months and muddy during the winter and spring, unpaved roads played havoc with wagons, carriages, and bicycles. Plank roads made from lumber first appeared in California during the 1850s. Gravel roads and macadam, a form of compacted gravel coated with oil, came into use during the late 19th century. Finally, after 1900, concrete roads topped by a mixture of bitumen, aggregate, and sand called asphalt became the standard modern road surface. Durable, smooth, and impervious to water, asphalt withstood winter weather, reduced vehicular wear and tear, and better facilitated drainage (Kostof 1992).
After 1910, as automobile usage surged, and as suburbanization occurred on the edges of town and cities in California and elsewhere, city planners began articulating a hierarchy of streets to distinguish residential roads, collector roads, arterial roads, and highways, each handling progressively higher volumes of traffic. Through the remainder of the twentieth century, as commercial and residential growth supplanted farms and ranches on the edges of California towns and cities, many rural county roads became adapted to suit the new suburban landscape. In many places, older two-lane rural roads became two- and four-lane suburban arterial streets lined with shopping centers and parking lots; others became two-lane collector streets lined with new residential subdivisions.
In 1936, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a New Deal program designed to boost mortgage lending in the United States, developed design standards for new suburban residential streets. FHA standards called for quieter streets with T-intersections, cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear patterns in an effort to slow traffic. With few exceptions, homebuilders in California and other western states after 1940 adhered to FHA standards; homebuilders also eliminated alleys behind residential properties in favor driveways leading to street-facing garages (Kostof 1992). After 1960, homebuilders also began creating large master planned suburban developments featuring winding arterial parkways deliberately separated from residential zones to permit higher speeds.
Roads in Corona
Roads first developed in Corona’s historic core on Grand Boulevard, a circle street that is 3 miles in circumference, 1 mile in diameter, and 100-feet wide. Two principal thoroughfares, Main Street (north–south) and Sixth Street (east– west), intersect at the center of the circle. Inside the circle, a grid of pedestrian-oriented, rectangular blocks and streets create neighborhoods and small commercial nodes. Most residential neighborhoods in the historic core contain single-family and low-density multifamily homes, most of which are accessed by rear alleys (City of Corona 2021).
Residential streets outside the historic core serve typical suburban neighborhoods built after World War II that are characterized by cul-de-sacs and wide curvilinear streets. Community-serving commercial centers exist at major street intersections of the primary entries and in most neighborhoods (City of Corona 2021).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Roads within the Project Area include West Ontario Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Buena Vista Avenue.
While Riverside County crews constructed all four roads circa 1920s, research found little indication that they shared an association with the Good Roads Movement that lasted until the late 1920s. A 1948 aerial image depicts all four roads in their current confirmation except for S. Lincoln Avenue which was realigned roughly 600 feet south of W.
Ontario Avenue in the 1990s. Riverside County paved all four roads during 1970s according to aerial images. From at least the 1940s to the 1960s, these roads served the surrounding agriculture activities but by 1970s and 1980s suburban single-family neighborhoods developed adjacent to these roads (City of Corona 2021; National Environmental Title Research LLC [NETR] 2023).
Evaluation
Oak Avenue (Resource OV-09) does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, or as a City of Corona Historic Landmark, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated below.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
Oak Avenue in Corona provided residents of Corona with access to other nearby rural communities in Riverside County. It did not, however, function as a major road for Corona residents because it was a one-lane dirt road until the 1970s. Furthermore, the construction of Oak Avenue also did not mark a milestone in the Good Roads Movement in Riverside County. There is nothing in the archival record to suggest that Oak Avenue is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Riverside County history. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Riverside County crews built and maintained Oak Avenue. However, there is nothing in the archival record to suggest that Oak Avenue is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
As a conventional two-lane suburban section line road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, Oak Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of Oak Avenue is expressed in its built form and in the historical record. It has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Though Oak Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a two-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, Oak Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
17.63.050 Corona Register – Landmark listing criteria.
Criterion A, 1. Though the subject road is greater than 50 years old, ECORP found no indication that the road is of exceptional importance.
Criterion A, 2. Though the subject road is reflective of road development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about its development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3a. Though the subject road is reflective of transportation development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about the road’s development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3b. As stated in the NRHP and CRHR evaluation above, the road is not associated with the lives of persons significant in Corona’s past.
Criterion A, 3c. As a conventional two-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, Oak Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion A, 3d. The subject road is a commonplace street in Corona, and there is no evidence that it reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history.
Criterion A, 3e. Research found no evidence to suggest that the subject road is the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
Criterion A, 3f. The subject road represents a typical example of its type and does not exemplify one of the best remaining architectural styles or types in a neighborhood or contains outstanding elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship of a particular historic period.
Criterion A, 3g. The subject road is not in a unique location.
Criterion A, 3h. The subject road is not a potential source of archeological or paleontological interest.
Criterion A, 3i. There is no evidence that the subject road contains a natural setting or feature that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of Corona.
Criterion A, 4. Though Oak Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a two-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, Oak Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
Criterion C. The subject road is not a reconstructed improvement.
Criterion D. The subject road is not a site, improvement, or natural feature that is intended to be primarily commemorative.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B12. References (continued):
City of Corona. 2021. 2020–2040 General Plan - Housing Element 2021-2029. November 3, 2021 _____. 2018. History of Corona, https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/library-recreationservices/library/heritage-room/history-of-corona. Accessed December 6, 2023.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Freel, G. S. 2011. The History of Corona. Corona Public Library, Corona, California.
Gunther, J. D. 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. 1998. Roads and Highways. In The New Encyclopedia of the American West, edited by Howard R. Lamar. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Johnson, Hildegard Binder. 1990. Towards a National Landscape. In The Making of the American Landscape, edited by Michael P. Conzen. Routledge, New York.Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H.
Colten, pp. 81-88. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kostof, Spiro. 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History. Bulfinch Press, Boston, MA.
Monkkonen, Eric H. 1988. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns, 1780-1980. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Oak Avenue
ECORP: N:\2023\2023-213 Ontario Avenue Widening at Lincoln Ave\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Ontario Ave CRM.aprx/CRM_DPR_LOCATION_Letter (2022)-mwilliams 12/12/2023 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
*Map Name: Corona South, CA and Corona North, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:1994 (p.r.1997), 1975
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: Buena Vista Avenue
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Corona South Date: 1967 T04S; R07W; Section 0 S.B.B.M. c. Address: City: Corona Zip: 92882
d. UTM: 11 S 445789 mE 3746568 mN
e. Other Locational Data: N/A
*P3a. Description:
Buena Vista Avenue (Resource OV-10) is an approximately 170-foot-long, north–south-oriented segment road in Corona. It is a 70-foot-wide, two-lane section of suburban road paved with asphalt. The road was built in c. 1920 and was paved during the 1970s. The western and eastern sides of the road include concrete gutters. It also features modern reflective speed bumps, reflective paint (including white side-stripes), and turn arrows. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP37. Highway/trail
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
Overview of Buena Vista Avenue
View northeast, May 6, 2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
c. 1920 (Topographic Map)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Riverside County
4040 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
*P8. Recorded by:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*P9. Date Recorded:
December 6, 2023
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resources Investigation and Built Environment Evaluation for the Ontario Road Widening at Lincoln Avenue, Riverside County, California. Prepared for City of Corona *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # OV-10
B1. Historic Name: Buena Vista Avenue
B2. Common Name: Buena Vista Avenue
B3. Original Use: Road B4. Present Use: Road
*B5. Architectural Style: N/A
*B6. Construction History:
N/A
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme: Road Area: Corona
Period of Significance: 1920s Property Type: Road Applicable Criteria: N/A The following Significance Statement provides historic contexts to support an evaluation of OV-10 using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and City of Corona Historic Landmark criteria. (See continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator:
Andrew Bursan
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
*Date of Evaluation: December 7, 2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance (continued):
Historic Context
City of Corona History
As early as 1825, brothers Bernardo and Tomás Yorba used the land encompassing the Project area for cattle grazing, calling it La Sierra, although they held no legal title. In 1846, shortly before California became part of the United States, Mexican Governor Pio Pico signed two grants for adjacent lands along the Santa Ana River, dividing La Sierra in two: Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda). These grants, to Bernardo Yorba and Tomás Yorba’s widow, Doña Vicenta Sepulveda, respectively, comprised a total of eight leagues (approximately 35,560 acres). Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) consisted of the southwestern half of the former La Sierra, and Rancho La Sierra (Sepulveda) comprised the northeastern half. The present-day city of Corona is situated on former Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) land (Gunther 1984). The Mexican Period, which began with independence from Spain in 1821, continued until the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the Territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 led to statehood in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos, making it difficult for their owners to pay the new American taxes on their thousands of acres. Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived Anglo-Americans. Foreclosures and land sales eventually resulted in the transfer of most of the land grants into the hands of Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) was eventually surveyed and was patented at 17,787 acres on February 4, 1875. Eleven years later, in February 1886, an entrepreneur from Iowa named Robert B. Taylor formed the South Riverside Land & Water Company and purchased 11,500 acres of Rancho La Sierra (Yorba) for $109,800. Taylor and his board of directors, composed of Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, investors Adolph Rimpau, A. S. Garretson, George L. Joy, and former Iowa governor Samuel Merrill, bought water rights in nearby Temescal Valley to irrigate their land, and hired Anaheim engineer H. Clay Kellogg to survey a townsite they called South Riverside. From a variety of potential plans, the board and Kellogg decided on a traditional grid of streets within a wide, circular thoroughfare, nearly one mile in diameter, called Grand Boulevard. Many lots in South Riverside were sold and the South Riverside post office was established in 1887 to serve the rapidly growing population. Grand Boulevard was soon lined with two-story mansions, schools, churches, and businesses. Most of the new residents owned or worked in the orange and lemon groves that were rapidly spreading across the acres of land surrounding the community (Freel 2011; Gunther 1984).
In 1887, just as South Riverside began to grow, the California Central Railroad Company (CCRR), a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad, completed a line to Los Angeles from San Bernardino via Riverside, South Riverside, and Orange. In 1889, the CCRR and another AT&SF subsidiary, the California Southern Railroad Company, were merged into the Southern California Railway Company. which was purchased by the AT&SF in 1906 (Bryant 1974; Gunther 1984; Robertson 1998). The railroad tracks, which passed just north of the great circle formed by Grand Avenue, became the site of the city’s industrial buildings and citrus packing houses (Freel 2011). South Riverside was nicknamed “Queen Colony” and “Circle City” by many of its early citizens, who resented that its formal name implied that it was merely a suburb of Riverside, the larger city to the north. Around 1889, residents began to agitate for a change of name. A vote was held in 1894, with fanciful names like “Lemonton,” “Grevilla,” “Hesperides,” and “Circleville” up for choosing. The original name was retained until 1896, when on July 13, the settlement was incorporated as the City of Corona. The new name was the suggestion of Baron Harden Hickey, an adventurer, eccentric character, owner of the nearby Cerreto Ranch, and friend of the city’s founder, Robert Taylor. Immediately, the name of the local railroad station was changed from South Riverside to Corona, and the South Riverside Bee newspaper was renamed the Corona Courier. The post office was changed to Corona in 1897 (Gunther 1984). By the turn of the twentieth century, the population of Corona was more than 1,400. Five thousand acres of citrus groves covered the land surrounding the city by 1912, and the packing houses along the AT&SF tracks at the north end of town shipped more fruit than those of any other southern California city. By the 1950s, Corona was known as the “lemon capital of the world,” exporting lemon juice, citric acid, lemon oil, and pectin, in addition to whole lemons, all over the globe. The orange and lemon industries were the leading employers in the Corona area through the 1960s (Freel 2011).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
After World War II, residential development began to spread from the City’s center into the citrus groves, as the value of real estate exceeded the potential profits from fruit crops. By the 1970s, housing tracts had displaced so many Corona lemon and orange groves that the demand for fruit could not be met by local harvests. Sunkist closed its Corona packing houses in 1982, and other producers soon followed. Agriculture has continued to diminish in the last three decades (Freel 2011). By 1954, the population of Corona was more than 11,000. State Route 91, the Riverside Freeway, cut through the north edge of the Grand Boulevard circle in 1962, initiating a period of growth and downtown renewal that lasted through the 1970s. I-15 was completed through the east side of the City in 1989. As suburban developments such as Corona Hills, Sierra del Oro, and South Corona have grown up around the original central town in recent years, the City has become a bedroom community (Freel 2011). The population of Corona is now over 160,000 (City of Corona 2018).
Roads in California
During the second half of the 19th century, a period of rapid railroad development in the United States, public roads in California and other western states became neglected and degraded. By 1900, “the nation with the greatest railway system in the world had the worst roads” (Johnson 1990:139). Interest in road building revived around the turn of the century when farmers and ranchers, many disillusioned with high railroad rates, began asking county officials for better surface roads. They were joined by millions of bicyclists who called for smoother roads in town and in the countryside. Joining forces, farmers, ranchers, and bicyclists organized local, state, and national “good roads” campaigns. In response, the federal government established the Office of Road Inquiry in the Department of Agriculture to study new road building techniques (Jackson 1998).
Dusty during summer months and muddy during the winter and spring, unpaved roads played havoc with wagons, carriages, and bicycles. Plank roads made from lumber first appeared in California during the 1850s. Gravel roads and macadam, a form of compacted gravel coated with oil, came into use during the late 19th century. Finally, after 1900, concrete roads topped by a mixture of bitumen, aggregate, and sand called asphalt became the standard modern road surface. Durable, smooth, and impervious to water, asphalt withstood winter weather, reduced vehicular wear and tear, and better facilitated drainage (Kostof 1992).
After 1910, as automobile usage surged, and as suburbanization occurred on the edges of town and cities in California and elsewhere, city planners began articulating a hierarchy of streets to distinguish residential roads, collector roads, arterial roads, and highways, each handling progressively higher volumes of traffic. Through the remainder of the twentieth century, as commercial and residential growth supplanted farms and ranches on the edges of California towns and cities, many rural county roads became adapted to suit the new suburban landscape. In many places, older two-lane rural roads became two- and four-lane suburban arterial streets lined with shopping centers and parking lots; others became two-lane collector streets lined with new residential subdivisions.
In 1936, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a New Deal program designed to boost mortgage lending in the United States, developed design standards for new suburban residential streets. FHA standards called for quieter streets with T-intersections, cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear patterns in an effort to slow traffic. With few exceptions, homebuilders in California and other western states after 1940 adhered to FHA standards; homebuilders also eliminated alleys behind residential properties in favor driveways leading to street-facing garages (Kostof 1992). After 1960, homebuilders also began creating large master planned suburban developments featuring winding arterial parkways deliberately separated from residential zones to permit higher speeds.
Roads in Corona
Roads first developed in Corona’s historic core on Grand Boulevard, a circle street that is 3 miles in circumference, 1 mile in diameter, and 100-feet wide. Two principal thoroughfares, Main Street (north–south) and Sixth Street (east– west), intersect at the center of the circle. Inside the circle, a grid of pedestrian-oriented, rectangular blocks and streets create neighborhoods and small commercial nodes. Most residential neighborhoods in the historic core contain single-family and low-density multifamily homes, most of which are accessed by rear alleys (City of Corona 2021).
Residential streets outside the historic core serve typical suburban neighborhoods built after World War II that are characterized by cul-de-sacs and wide curvilinear streets. Community-serving commercial centers exist at major street intersections of the primary entries and in most neighborhoods (City of Corona 2021).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Roads within the Project Area include West Ontario Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Buena Vista Avenue.
While Riverside County crews constructed all four roads circa 1920s, research found little indication that they shared an association with the Good Roads Movement that lasted until the late 1920s. A 1948 aerial image depicts all four roads in their current confirmation except for S. Lincoln Avenue which was realigned roughly 600 feet south of W.
Ontario Avenue in the 1990s. Riverside County paved all four roads during 1970s according to aerial images. From at least the 1940s to the 1960s, these roads served the surrounding agriculture activities but by 1970s and 1980s suburban single-family neighborhoods developed adjacent to these roads (City of Corona 2021; National Environmental Title Research LLC [NETR] 2023).
Evaluation
Buena Vista Avenue (Resource OV-10) does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, or as a City of Corona Historic Landmark, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated below.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
Buena Vista Avenue in Corona provided residents of Corona with access to other nearby rural communities in Riverside County. It did not, however, function as a major road for Corona residents because it was a one-lane dirt road until the 1970s. Furthermore, the construction of Buena Vista Avenue also did not mark a milestone in the Good Roads Movement in Riverside County. There is nothing in the archival record to suggest that Buena Vista Avenue is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Riverside County history. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Riverside County crews built and maintained Beuna Vista Avenue. However, there is nothing in the archival record to suggest that Buena Vista Avenue is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
As a conventional two-lane suburban road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, Buena Vista Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of Buena Vista Avenue is expressed in its built form and in the historical record. It has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Though Buena Vista Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a two-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, Buena Vista Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
17.63.050 Corona Register – Landmark listing criteria.
Criterion A, 1. Though the subject road is greater than 50 years old, ECORP found no indication that the road is of exceptional importance.
Criterion A, 2. Though the subject road is reflective of road development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about its development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3a. Though the subject road is reflective of transportation development in Corona, archival research failed to indicate anything significant or unique about the road’s development history. The road was not the first or last of its type, and similar types exist throughout the region. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the subject road is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local level.
Criterion A, 3b. As stated in the NRHP and CRHR evaluation above, the road is not associated with the lives of persons significant in Corona’s past.
Criterion A, 3c. As a conventional two-lane suburban section line road, indistinguishable from multiple similar roads in Riverside County, Buena Vista Avenue does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion A, 3d. The subject road is a commonplace street in Corona, and there is no evidence that it reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history.
Criterion A, 3e. Research found no evidence to suggest that the subject road is the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
Criterion A, 3f. The subject road represents a typical example of its type and does not exemplify one of the best remaining architectural styles or types in a neighborhood, nor does it contain outstanding elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship of a particular historic period Criterion A, 3g. The subject road is not in a unique location Criterion A, 3h. The subject road is not a potential source of archeological or paleontological interest.
Criterion A, 3i. There is no evidence that the subject road contains a natural setting or feature that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of Corona.
Criterion A, 4. Though Buena Vista Avenue possesses integrity of location, the road has gone from a circa 1920s one-lane dirt road to a two-lane paved road with bike lanes. In addition, the setting has completely changed from heavily agricultural land to completely developed with single-family suburban tract homes. Therefore, the change in road design and surroundings have resulted in a lack of integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, Buena Vista Avenue does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district; the resource is not listed on any Certified Local Government historic property register.
Criterion C. The subject road is not a reconstructed improvement.
Criterion D. The subject road is not a site, improvement, or natural feature that is intended to be primarily commemorative.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: 1/24/2024 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B12. References (continued):
City of Corona. 2021. 2020–2040 General Plan - Housing Element 2021-2029. November 3, 2021 _____. 2018. History of Corona, https://www.coronaca.gov/government/departments-divisions/library-recreationservices/library/heritage-room/history-of-corona. Accessed December 6, 2023.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Freel, G. S. 2011. The History of Corona. Corona Public Library, Corona, California.
Gunther, J. D. 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. 1998. Roads and Highways. In The New Encyclopedia of the American West, edited by Howard R. Lamar. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Johnson, Hildegard Binder. 1990. Towards a National Landscape. In The Making of the American Landscape, edited by Michael P. Conzen. Routledge, New York.Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H.
Colten, pp. 81-88. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kostof, Spiro. 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History. Bulfinch Press, Boston, MA.
Monkkonen, Eric H. 1988. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns, 1780-1980. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Buena Vista
Avenue
ECORP: N:\2023\2023-213 Ontario Avenue Widening at Lincoln Ave\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Ontario Ave CRM.aprx/CRM_DPR_LOCATION_Letter (2022)-mwilliams 12/12/2023 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
*Map Name: Corona South, CA and Corona North, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:1994 (p.r.1997), 1975
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
ADDENDUM TO THE CORONA GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE EIR FOR THE WEST ONTARIO AVENUE WIDENING
PROJECT
CITY OF CORONA
Appendix
August 2024 Page 25
Appendix D. Ontario Avenue Widening Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum
3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: July 17, 2024
To: Paul Mittica, Mark Thomas
From: Paul Herrmann, P.E.
Shane Russell
Subject: Ontario Avenue Widening Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum OC23-0995
Fehr & Peers has completed a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment for the proposed Ontario Avenue widening (Project) in Corona, California. The Project is proposing an amendment to the adopted City of Corona General Plan (2020). This assessment compares VMT generated by the proposed Project to VMT generated by the City’s previously adopted General Plan to determine if the Project would substantially increase VMT. This VMT analysis is consistent with requirements of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018), and the Corona Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines (City’s VMT Guidelines) (2019), and the Corona General Plan Technical Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (Corona GPU DEIR) (2019).
Project Description
The Project proposes to widen Ontario Avenue in the City of Corona. The Project limits extend from Oak Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue. The Project will be implemented as follows:
• Widen Ontario Avenue from Oak Avenue to Lincoln Avenue from four to five lanes; one additional through lane proposed going eastbound (three through lanes total) and a merging lane going westbound (two through lanes total)
• Widen Ontario Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Conejo Street from two lanes to three lanes going eastbound (three through lanes total)
• Widen Ontario Avenue from Buena Vista Avenue to Glenhaven Drive from two to three lanes going westbound (three through lanes)
Paul Mittica
July 17, 2024
VMT Assessment
Fehr & Peers prepared VMT forecasts to evaluate scenarios with and without the Project using the County’s travel demand forecasting model, as described below in the modeling methodology.
Fehr & Peers coded the Project into the model roadway network to measure Citywide VMT with and without the Project under baseline and General Plan Buildout conditions.
VMT forecasts were prepared using the Origin/Destination (OD) Method (consistent with the way VMT was presented in the Corona GPU DEIR) and using the Boundary Method (consistent with the recommended method in the City’s VMT Guidelines for transportation infrastructure projects).
Modeling Methodology
Per the City’s VMT Guidelines, VMT forecasts were prepared using the most appropriate travel demand forecasting model, the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM). Western Riverside County Council of Government’s (WRCOG) developed RIVCOM as a subarea model from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) model, which is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). RIVCOM uses a model base year of 2018 and future year of 2045 and is the most appropriate model for VMT analysis of the Project as it contains the most recent land use and roadway information.
Fehr & Peers reviewed the model base year and future year roadway network and SocioEconomic Land Use Data (SED) within the City Limits. The 2045 SED was updated to account for all pending and approved development projects in the City of Corona, as directed by City staff.
As recommended in the RIVCOM model documentation, model assignment parameters were set to run up-to 10 loops with a minimum convergence criterion of 0.01.
Origin/Destination (OD) Method VMT
The OD method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations. The OD method is completed after the final loops of assignment in the travel demand model (after person trips have been converted to total vehicle trips). Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis
Paul Mittica
July 17, 2024
zone. OD VMT is typically presented as total VMT or as total VMT per Service Population (VMT/SP) (SP is the sum of population and employment within an area).
Consistent with the analysis prepared for the Corona GPU DEIR, cumulative OD VMT forecasts (with and without project) were prepared for the following areas:
• City of Corona,
• City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI)
• Total City + SOI
OD VMT forecasts are presented in Table 1.
Boundary Method VMT
The Boundary Method is the sum of all weekday VMT (volume on each roadway segment times the segment length) on a roadway network within a designated boundary. Boundary method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadway segment by the length of each segment. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary and is another way to summarize VMT. This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cut-through and/or displaced traffic.
The boundary utilized in the assessment below is the Corona City Limits Boundary as recommended in the City’s VMT Guidelines. Because the Project resides near the edge of the City Limits Boundary, additional boundaries based on the average trip length to the Project location were applied consistent with OPR’s recommendation. To provide a complete assessment of the Project’s effect on VMT, the average trip length boundary (5.6 miles) and double the average trip length boundary (11.2 miles) are also presented.
Fehr & Peers used StreetLight Data to determine the average trip length of trips on Ontario Avenue at the Project location. Streetlight data uses anonymous in-vehicle navigation system data and some cell phone location-based services data that can be aggregated together to obtain trip estimates and trip lengths.
Boundary VMT forecasts were prepared for the following scenarios (as shown in Table 2):
• Model Base Year (2018) No Project (without widening)
• Model Base Year (2018) Plus Project (with widening)
• Future Year (2045) No Project (without widening)
• Future Year (2045) Plus Project (with widening)
Paul Mittica
July 17, 2024
• Notice of Preparation (NOP) Year (2023) No Project (without widening) – Interpolated between model base year (2018) and future year (2045)
• NOP Year (2023) Plus Project (with widening) – Interpolated between model base year (2018) and future year (2045)
Conclusion
The Project would widen Ontario Avenue and add approximately 0.74 lane miles of additional capacity. Fehr & Peers prepared VMT forecasts using two methodologies to evaluate the Project’s potential to induce VMT.
The OD VMT forecasts within the City and SOI decrease by a small margin, indicating that the Project improves an existing bottleneck and makes travel slightly more efficient for Corona residents and employees. The Boundary VMT forecasts are incrementally higher with the Project, indicating that the Project would contribute to improving regional travel through Corona.
Since the Project is forecast to increase Boundary VMT by only as much as 0.05%, the Project would not substantially increase VMT. In addition, since the OD VMT forecasts show a decrease in VMT and VMT/SP as compared to the adopted general plan, such that the project would not worsen the previously identified transportation impact in the Corona GPU DEIR.
3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (949) 308-6300 | Fax (949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com Table 1: OD VMT Analysis
Boundary Population Employment
Service
Population
Approved General
Plan (4 Lanes)
Proposed Amendment
(6 Lanes) Change in VMT
Total VMT VMT/SP Total VMT VMT/SP Total VMT VMT/SP
City of Corona 182,465 91,326 273,791 11,112,259 40.59 11,110,454 40.58 -1,805 -0.01 SOI 45,108 9,608 54,716 2,011,187 36.76 2,010,737 36.75 -451 -0.01 Total City + SOI 227,573 100,934 328,507 13,123,446 39.95 13,121,191 39.94 -2,256 -0.01 Source: RIVCOM
Table 2: Boundary VMT Analysis
Boundary
Base Year
(2018) No
Project
Base Year
(2018) Plus
Project
Change
in VMT
Future Year
(2045) No
Project
Future Year
(2045) Plus
Project
Change
in VMT
NOP Year
(2023) No
Project1
NOP Year
(2023) Plus
Project1
Change
in VMT
Citywide Boundary 4,042,000 4,042,847 0.02% 4,474,027 4,744,329 0.05% 4,171,634 4,172,751 0.03%
5.6 Mile Radius 6,783,745 6,784,960 0.02% 7,881,916 7,885,209 0.04% 6,987,110 6,988,710 0.02%
11.2 Mile Radius 16,428,395 16,434,481 0.04% 21,547,697 21,557,071 0.04% 17,376,414 17,383,109 0.04% Notes:
NOP Year (2023) VMT estimates were interpolated between Base Year (2018) and Future Year (2045).
Source: RIVCOM
Notice of Exemption FORM “A”
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:
☐ Office of Planning and Research
P. O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
FROM:
(Public
Agency)
Name: City of Corona, Planning &
Development Department
Address: 400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
Telephone: 951-736-2437
☒ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
or
County Clerk (Riverside)
Address: 2724 Gateway Dr. Riverside, CA
92507
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment GPA2024-0002
2. Project Applicant: City of Corona; 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882
3. Project Location – Identify Street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
N/A – GPA applicable Citywide
4. (a) Project Location – City: Corona (b) Project Location – County: Riverside
5. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project:
General Plan Amendment to revise the Public Safety
Element to include an updated definition and description for the City’s adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Corona
7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the project,
including any person undertaking an activity that
receives financial assistance from the Public Agency
as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity:
City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue,
Corona, CA 92882
8. Exempt status: (check one)
(a) ☐ Ministerial project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines § 15268)
(b) ☐ Not a project.
(c) ☐ Emergency Project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(b),(c))
Notice of Exemption FORM “A”
(d) ☐ Categorical Exemption.
State type and section number:
(e) ☐ Declared Emergency. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a))
(f) ☐ Statutory Exemption.
State Code section number:
(g) ☒ Other. Explanation: Section 15061 (b)(3) (“common sense exemption”)
9. Reason why project was exempt: The proposed project includes legislative changes only, specifically amending language within the Public Safety Element of the General Plan for purpose of bringing the Element into consistency with requirements of State and Federal Law, and accordingly will not have a significant effect on the environment.
10. Lead Agency Contact Person:
Telephone: Evan Langan, Senior Planner; (951) 736-2437
11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form “A”) before filing.
12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes ☒ No ☐
13. Was a public hearing held by the Lead Agency to consider the exemption? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, the date of the public hearing was: February 10, 2025 ________________________________
Signature Date: Click to enter date
________________________________
Name Title: Click to enter title
☐ Signed by Lead Agency ☐ Signed by Applicant
Date Received for Filing: Click to enter date
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.
FINAL MINUTES - February 10, 2025
City of Corona - Planning & Housing Commission Page 1
City of Corona
Planning & Housing Commission Minutes
Monday, February 10, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
Commission Present: Matt Woody, Craig Siqueland, Sarah Longwell, Karen Alexander Commission Absent: Marie Vernon
_____________________________________________________________________
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Alexander led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Longwell called the meeting to order.
2.1 RECOGNITION - Matt Woody
Chair Longwell presented Commissioner Woody with a recognition certificate for his service as Chair of the Planning and Housing Commission. Commissioner Woody expressed his gratitude.
3. MEETING MINUTES
These Minutes were approved.
3.1 MINUTES - January 21, 2025
These minutes were approved.
Moved by: Craig Siqueland
Seconded by: Karen Alexander
Aye (3): Craig Siqueland, Sarah Longwell, and Karen Alexander Abstain (1): Matt Woody
Absent (1): Marie Vernon
Motion APPROVED (3 to 0)
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
FINAL MINUTES - February 10, 2025
City of Corona - Planning & Housing Commission Page 2
The Consent Calendar was approved.
Moved by: Matt Woody
Seconded by: Karen Alexander
Aye (4): Matt Woody, Craig Siqueland, Sarah Longwell, and Karen Alexander Absent (1): Marie Vernon
Motion APPROVED (4 to 0)
5.1 GPCD2025-0001
That the Planning and Housing Commission adopt Resolution No. 2658 determining that the proposed vacation of a 10-foot-wide waterline easement is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 CUP2024-0010
Eduardo Galdamez, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and exhibits for CUP2024-0010.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff regarding this item’s details.
Chair Longwell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wasef Houch, applicant, answered various Commission questions regarding the proposed project.
Chair Longwell closed the public hearing.
Moved by: Karen Alexander
Seconded by: Matt Woody
That the Planning and Housing Commission find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a) and adopt Resolution No. 2657 GRANTING CUP2024-0010, based on the findings contained in the staff report and conditions of approval.
Aye (4): Matt Woody, Craig Siqueland, Sarah Longwell, and Karen Alexander Absent (1): Marie Vernon
Motion APPROVED (4 to 0)
6.2 GPA2024-0002
Evan Langan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and exhibits for GPA2024-0002.
The Commission inquired about the Ontario Widening Project and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan language. Staff provided clarification.
FINAL MINUTES - February 10, 2025
City of Corona - Planning & Housing Commission Page 3
Chair Longwell opened the public hearing.
Steve Felix, resident whose uncle lives in the project area, provided comments on the proposed development. Commission and staff responded to the speaker's concerns.
Chair Longwell closed the public hearing.
The Commission had final questions on utility lines, fire hydrants, and future public outreach, and staff provided further clarification.
Moved by: Karen Alexander
Seconded by: Matt Woody
That the Planning and Housing Commission adopt Resolution No. 2659 granting GPA2024-0002 as part of Cycle II of General Plan Amendments for 2025, and recommend that the City Council: (1) approve GPA2024-0002, based on the findings contained in the staff report; (2) adopt the Addendum to the certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and (3) find that GPA2024-0002 be exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Aye (4): Matt Woody, Craig Siqueland, Sarah Longwell, and Karen Alexander Absent (1): Marie Vernon
Motion APPROVED (4 to 0)
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Ms. Coletta reported that the City Council approved the Green River Ranch Project items reviewed by the Planning Commission in November 2024, and so the projects will move forward.
9. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Future agenda items were noted for the Planning and Housing Commission meeting of February 24, 2025.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Longwell adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. to the Planning and Housing Commission meeting of Monday, February 24, 2025, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
DATE: 03/19/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Department of the City Manager
2025-115
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION ON COUNCIL MEMBER DADDARIO’S REQUEST FOR
A CITY LOGO USAGE POLICY FOR YOUTH SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 14, 2024, Council Member Daddario submitted a Future Agenda Request for the City Council to consider creating a City Logo Usage Policy for youth sports organizations. On January 15, 2025, the City Council directed staff to research and draft a policy. This policy will provide clear guidelines for using the City of Corona’s logo appropriately by local youth sports organizations, thereby protecting the City's brand identity and ensuring consistent presentation across teams. Rather than directly distributing digital logo files, teams will be directed to an approved vendor who will produce official logo patches, ensuring consistency with the city's brand and among youth sports teams. The goal is to establish guidelines for the City of Corona’s logo to maintain its integrity, ensure consistency, protect the City’s brand identity, and support youth sports organizations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council provide feedback and direction on a logo usage policy for youth sports organizations.
BACKGROUND & HISTORY:
The Corona Municipal Code (CMC) Section 1.04.170 prohibits the unauthorized use of the City seal or logo without express consent from the City Council. On November 14, 2024, Council Member Daddario submitted a Future Agenda Request for the City Council to consider creating a City Logo Usage Policy for youth sports organizations. On January 15, 2025, Council directed staff to research and draft a policy. The proposal aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan Goal #5: “Sense of Place” by promoting community pride while protecting the City’s brand. This proposal seeks to formalize a process for granting permission to local youth sports organizations while ensuring appropriate usage and adherence to design standards.
The Corona Municipal Code (CMC) Section 1.04.170 prohibits the unauthorized use of the City seal or logo without express consent from the City Council.
Staff researched policies from eight neighboring cities to identify the best practices in municipal logo usage. This research revealed that while policies for Norco, Hemet, and Murrieta do not restrict logo use to youth sports organizations only, these cities do place emphasis on ensuring appropriate use of city logos through approval processes, restrictions on alterations, and clear guidelines for endorsements, advertising, and political use. The proposed policy incorporates these principles to allow logo use while enhancing transparency, consistency, and accountability specifically for youth sports organizations.
ANALYSIS:
The Youth Sports City Logo Usage Policy aims to balance support for local youth sports organizations with the need to protect and maintain the City’s brand identity. Youth sports are organized athletic activities for individuals between the ages of 3 and 18, typically structured through leagues, clubs, or school-based programs. Traditional team sports include soccer, baseball, softball, basketball, football, volleyball, and cheer.
The proposed policy provides eligibility requirements and guidelines for youth sports organizations to request use of the City’s official logo for placement on team apparel.
Eligibility under this policy requires that the organization serves youth defined as ages 3 to 18 and a minimum of 65% of the youth sport organization participants be residents of Corona. Requests for logo use must be submitted in writing to the City Manager’s Office, detailing the intended use, audience, and placement. Permitted uses of the logo focus on youth sports and include display on team uniforms and accessorizing apparel such as team hats and jackets. The youth sports logo policy usage is not applicable to promotional materials for events, and league publicity, such as websites or newsletters, to highlight the City’s support. Approved organizations will be permitted to display the City’s official logo as a patch on their apparel, thereby maintaining the logo’s original proportions, colors, and elements. Groups may obtain patches through the City approved printing vendor. This process ensures that logo patches meet established quality and design standards, maintaining consistency across all youth sports teams.
This policy also establishes clear guidelines for logo use, ensuring consistent application and preventing misuse. Prohibited uses include the logo’s association with political
activities, such as endorsements of campaigns or candidates, and its use in commercial ventures for profit-making activities without explicit approval. Misrepresentation, such as unauthorized alterations or associations with content conflicting with City values, is also prohibited. Enforcement measures will include cease-and-desist orders, revocation of privileges, and potential legal action for unauthorized use. Upon Council’s feedback and direction, Council will present a final draft for adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt if it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Adopting a Youth Sports City Logo Usage Policy is an administrative action and does not involve physical changes to the environment or approval of any project that could impact environmental resources. Therefore, this policy is not subject to CEQA, and no further environmental analysis is required.
PREPARED BY: TALA QASQAS, CITY MANAGEMENT FELLOW
REVIEWED BY: AMINAH MEARS, DPA, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
NICOLE MCDANIEL, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS:
1. EXHIBIT 1 – Future Agenda Item Request
2. EXHIBIT 2 – Draft Policy
Administrative Policy
ARTICLE I - PURPOSE
Section 1.1 General Purpose
This Policy provides guidelines for the use of the City of Corona’s official logo by Corona-based sports teams in an effort to:
Enhance community pride and foster a “Sense of Place” as outlined in the City’s Strategic Plan.
Support youth sports organizations in aligning with the City’s identity. Ensure logo usage is consistent with the City’s branding standards.
Section 1.2 Superseded Policies
None.
.
ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE
Section 2.1 Definitions
A. Logo: “Logo” shall mean the logo of the City of Corona as adopted by the Mayor and City Council on November 17, 2023.
B. Youth Sports: “Youth Sports” shall mean organized athletic activities for youth ages 3 to
18. Title: CITY LOGO USAGE FOR YOUTH SPORTS
ORGANIZATIONS POLICY
Administered By:
Policy No. Issue
Date
Revision
Date
Dept. Head
Approved
City Manager
Approved
Mayor
Approved
Administrative Policy
City of Corona Logo Usage for Youth Sports Organizations Policy Administered by Office of the City Manager
C. Corona-Based Sports Teams: “Corona-Based Sports Teams” means youth sports organizations whose participants are, at a minimum, 65% Corona residents.
Section 2.2 General Scope
This policy applies to youth sports organizations seeking to use the City’s logo on team uniforms and associated apparel, for use in their sports activities.
Section 2.3 Exemptions from Scope
None.
ARTICLE III – USES OF LOGO
Section 3.1 Approved Uses
A. The City logo may be used for Youth Team Uniforms & Apparel following City approval.
This includes display on jerseys, hats, warm-up gear, and other official sportswear.
Team merchandise and apparel with the City logo may not be sold for profit.
B. The logo may only be used after obtaining written approval from the City’s Manager’s Office or the designated department responsible for logo usage approval.
C. The logo must appear in appropriate contexts that align with the City’s community values Section 3.2 Distribution and Vendor Authorization
The City will not provide digital logo files to organizations; Organizations must order official logo patches from an authorized vendor designated by the City to ensure compliance with established quality and design standards.
Section 3.3 Prohibited Uses
The following uses are prohibited:
A. Personal or commercial purposes without prior written permission from the City.
Administrative Policy
City of Corona Logo Usage for Youth Sports Organizations Policy Administered by Office of the City Manager
B. Endorsements of campaigns, candidates, or use for politically related activities Materials that are misleading, defamatory, inappropriate, or conflict with the City’s values.
C. Any alteration or modification of the logo, including changes to color, proportions, spelling, or design.
D. Association with for-profit merchandise or promotional items without prior written permission from the City.
E. Use for purposes other than promoting youth sports activities as outlined in this policy.
ARTICLE IV – LOGO GUIDELINES AND USAGE
Section 4.1 Request Process
A. Youth Sports Organizations must submit a written request to the City Manager’s Office, including details on intended use, target audience, placement, and sample designs. a. Applications will be reviewed case-by-case to ensure compliance with policy standards.
B. The request must include details of the proposed use, including:
a. Intended use (e.g., uniform application).
b. Placement and context for the logo usage.
c. Sample mock-ups or design proposals, if available.
C. Allow at least 14 business days for the city to review and approve the revisions.
D. The City Manager’s Office will issue written approval or feedback.
E. Upon approval of the logo usage request, teams will be provided with written authorization and directed to an authorized vendor to order the approved patches.
F. Once approved, logo usage rights will remain valid for five years, after which a renewal application will be required.
G. The City reserves the right to revoke usage rights at any time if the terms of this policy are violated or if the association is deemed detrimental to the City.
ARTICLE V – ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Section 5.1 Enforcement and Termination of Use
Unauthorized use of the City logo may result in:
A. A cease-and-desist order.
Administrative Policy
City of Corona Logo Usage for Youth Sports Organizations Policy Administered by Office of the City Manager
B. Revocation of any privileges granted to the youth sports group to use the City’s logo, and C. Legal action, if warranted, for failure to abide by a written request to cease and desist.
ARTICLE VI – IMPLEMENTATION
Section 6.1 – Periodic Review
This policy will be reviewed periodically by the City Manager’s Office to ensure continued alignment and compliance with City priorities and design standards.
Tala Qasqas
City Management Fellow
3/19/2025
That the City Council
provide feedback
and direction on a
logo usage policy for
youth sports.
• New logo and seal were adopted on Nov. 17, 2023
• Logo: Symbolizes the City’s unique blend of culture and heritage; incorporates the Downtown Circle, citrus heritage, and Hispanic cultural contributions.
• Nov. 14, 2024: Council Member Daddario ask Council to consider policy.
• Per CMC Section 1.04.170, logo use requires City Council approval.
3 • The City currently issues permits to local sports
organizations to use city fields.
• Some of which (both indoor and outdoor) currently use some iterations of the logo.
Norco
• Each use of a City of Norco
trademark requires approval.
• The Trademark and Licensing
Program is overseen by the City
Manager’s Office.
PROCEDURE
ALTERATIONS
• [Logo] may not be altered in any
way, including color,
proportions, spelling,
punctuation, etc.
Hemet Murrieta
ALTERATIONS
PROCEDURE
ENDORSEMENTS
ENDORSEMENTS
• No person shall use the City seal
or logo for purposes of
supporting or opposing the
nomination or election to any
City or other public office.
• The City Logo shall not be used
or in connection with any
advertisement or promotion for
any commercial, for-sale
product, or political use.
• Any organization wishing to use
the official seal or logo shall
make an application for such use
to the City Manager’ s Office.
• Logo and seal must remain in
entirety with no alterations.
4 Policies from neighboring cities such as Norco, Hemet, and Murrieta were reviewed to identify best practices and align with regional standards for municipal logo usage. • Any organization wishing to use
the official logo or seal shall
make application for such use to
the City Manager’s Office.
PROCEDURE
ALTERATIONS
• If used by an outside organization
upon the approved, written
consent of the City Manager or
designee, the seal or logo must
remain in its entirety with no
alterations.
• Trademarks may not be used in
any manner that suggests or
implies the City’s endorsement
of other political parties or
views, or religious
organizations or beliefs.
ENDORSEMENTS
• Provide clear branding guidelines to support youth sports organizations in aligning with the City’s identity.
• Ensure consistent and appropriate use of the City logo. • Aligns with Strategic Plan Goal #5: “Sense of Place.” 5 • Support local youth sports teams by fostering community pride and engagement.
• Protect the City’s brand identity by maintaining visual and messaging standards.
• Avoid potential risks associated with improper or
unauthorized logo usage.
• Political Activities: No endorsements of campaigns, candidates, or use for political related activities.
• Commercial Ventures: Logo cannot be used for profit-making activities. • League Publicity: Cannot include the logo on league communications, press releases, and letterheads.
• Misrepresentation: No alterations, misuse, or association with content conflicting with City values.
• Youth Team Uniforms: Display the logo on jerseys and other apparel. • Team Merchandise: Logo may be placed on team merchandise like hats and water bottles.
• Team merchandise may not be sold for profit.
Design Standards:
• All logos will be produced as patches through an approved vendor to ensure consistency and brand integrity across youth sports teams.
• The City logo must remain intact, with no alterations. • Minimum size requirements for legibility in all formats will apply.
Approval Process:
• Submit Written Request: Send to the City Manager’s Office. • Review Timeline: Allow at least 14 business days for review and approval. • Approval Duration: Approvals are valid for 5 years, after which teams must submit a renewal request.
Enforcement:
• Unauthorized use may result in cease-and-desist orders. • Repeated violations could lead to revocation of privileges and potential legal action.
Policy Scope • This policy applies only to the City Logo (not the City Seal). • The City Seal is NOT included in this policy or permitted for use.
• This policy applies to traditional youth sports
including: • Football, Basketball, Soccer, Softball,
Baseball, Volleyball and Cheer.
• Other sports are subject to administrative
review.
Definition of Youth • This policy applies to youth sports teams defined as ages 3-18.
• Ensures consistency across city-run programs
and independent leagues.
Approved Logo Variations • There are three official versions of the City Logo.
• Organizations may use either of the two
approved versions along with any of the three
colors. • White, Opportunity Yellow, and Forest
Green. Page 1632 of 1660
8 Council
Approval • Seek Council direction to proceed with finalizing the policy. • Ensure alignment with Council goals and City priorities. • Present the finalized policy to City Council for review and approval. • Upon adoption, actively inform youth sports organizations about the new policy and how to request logo use.
02 • Policy will take effect immediately upon Council adoption. • Staff will oversee compliance and provide guidance to organizations as needed.
• CMO will periodically review the policy’s effectiveness and address any necessary adjustments.
Finalize
& Adopt
01 03
9 Implementation
That the City Council
provide feedback and
direction on a logo
usage policy for youth
sports.
(951) 279–3791
[email protected]
www.CoronaCA.gov
DATE: 03/19/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Planning and Development Department
2025-104
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CYCLE 2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2025 TO INCLUDE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2022-0004 AND 2024-0002 TO AMEND CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN (APPLICANT: CITY OF
CORONA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This staff report asks the City Council to approve a resolution affirming the approvals of General Plan Amendment 2022-0004 (GPA2022-0004) and General Plan Amendment 2024-0002 (GPA2024-0002) as part of Cycle 2 of General Plan Amendments for Year 2025. The City Council at its meeting on March 19, 2025, before considering this resolution, tentatively approved GPA2022-0004 by approving Resolution 2025-012, and GPA2024-0002 by approving Resolution 2025-014. The City is limited to amending mandatory elements of the General Plan to no more than four times per year. This resolution will account for amendment two for Year 2025.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-015 approving GPA2022-0004 and GPA2024-0002, amendments to the City’s General Plan as Cycle 2 of General Plan Amendments for 2025.
BACKGROUND & HISTORY:
Pursuant to Government Code section 65358(b), a mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended no more than four times per calendar year. The City batches the review of General Plan amendments to the mandatory elements into four quarterly cycles to not exceed four amendments within a calendar year. The General Plan amendments associated with Resolution 2025-015 are considered Cycle 2 for Year 2025.
GPA2022-0004 and GPA2024-0002 were reviewed separately by the City Council at a public hearing on March 19, 2025. The City Council at the public hearing makes the recommendation to approve the General Plan amendments under consideration with the final adoption of all amendments being considered in a single resolution, which is the reason for Resolution 2025-015.
ANALYSIS:
The General Plan amendments under consideration in Cycle 2 for Year 2025 include the following:
1. GPA2022-0004 to change the Land Use Plan within the Land Use Element changing the land use designation of a 0.86 parcel from General Commercial to Light Industrial, located on the east side of Promenade Avenue, approximately 170 feet north of East Sixth Street (APN 115-210-032). GPA2022-0004 was tentatively approved by Resolution 2025-012.
2. GPA2024-0002 to revise the Citywide Roadway Plan within the Circulation Element of the General Plan to reflect a change in the Roadway Classification for a portion of West Ontario Avenue from “Major Arterial 4 Lane” to “Major Arterial 6 Lane”, as well as revise the Public Safety Element of the General Plan to include an updated definition and description for the City’s adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). GPA2024-0002 was tentatively approved by Resolution 2025-014.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No application fee is associated with the preparation of this resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which were prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Corona Local CEQA Guidelines was previously approved for GPA2022-0004. The MND indicated that all potential environmental impacts from GPA2022-0004 were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant.
An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Corona General Plan Technical Update (SCH # 2018081039) (“General Plan EIR”) was prepared for the Circulation Element Amendment based upon a determination that the potential environmental impacts associated with the Circulation Element Amendment were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and was previously approved for
GPA2024-0002; and it was determined that the Public Safety Element Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it simply makes legislative changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with state and federal law.
PREPARED BY: JOANNE COLETTA, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit 1 – Resolution No. 2025-015
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-015
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GPA2022-0004 AND
GPA2024-0002, AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S GENERAL
PLAN (CYCLE 2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
FOR 2025).
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the City Council of the City of Corona (“City Council”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved Resolution No. 2025-012 tentatively approving an amendment to the City’s General Plan to change the land use designation on 0.86 acres located on the east side of Promenade Avenue, approximately 170 feet north of East Sixth Street from General Commercial (GC) to Light Industrial (LI) (“GPA2022-0004”); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025 prior to its tentative approval of GPA2022-0004, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which were prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Corona Local CEQA Guidelines and which included an analysis of the environmental impacts of GPA2022-0004. The MND indicated that all potential environmental impacts from GPA2022-0004 were less than significant or could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to testify in connection with GPA2022-0004 were heard during the public hearing on March 19, 2025 and GPA2022-0004 was comprehensively reviewed; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved Resolution No. 2025-014 tentatively approving an amendment to the City’s General Plan to: (1) revise the Citywide Roadway Plan within the Circulation Element to change in the roadway classification for a portion of West Ontario Avenue from “Major Arterial 4 Lane” to “Major Arterial 6 Lane” (“Circulation Element Amendment”); and (2) to revise the Public Safety Element to update the definition and description of the City’s adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“Public Safety Element Amendment”) (Circulation Element Amendment and Public Safety Element Amendment collectively referred to herein as “GPA2024-0002”); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025 prior to its tentative approval of GPA2024-0002, the City Council: (1) adopted an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Corona General Plan Technical Update (SCH # 2018081039) (“General Plan EIR”) prepared for the Circulation Element Amendment based upon a determination that the potential environmental impacts associated with the Circulation Element Amendment were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR; and (2) determined that the Public Safety Element Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it simply makes legislative changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with state and federal law; and
2 WHEREAS, all persons wishing to testify in connection with GPA2024-0002 were heard during the public hearing on March 19, 2025 and GPA2024-0002 was comprehensively reviewed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65358(b), a mandatory element of the City’s General Plan may be amended no more than four times per calendar year; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 65358(b), the City Council desires to approve GPA2022-0004 and GPA2024-0002 as part of Cycle 2 of the General Plan Amendments for 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CORONA, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA Findings for GPA2022-0004. As the decision-making body for GPA2022-0004, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative records for GPA2022-0004, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the MND, the initial study and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of GPA2022-0004 are either less-than-significant or can be mitigated to a level of less-thansignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the initial study.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings for GPA2024-0002.
A. Circulation Element Amendment. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum and all written and oral evidence received and presented concerning the Circulation Element Amendment. Based on the entire record before it and all written and oral evidence received and presented, the City Council has determined that the Addendum constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete review of the Circulation Element Amendment and finds that no additional environmental review is required based on the reasons set forth below:
1. No substantial changes are proposed by the Circulation Element Amendment that will require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Circulation Element Amendment will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant
3 environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
3. No new information of substantial importance has been found that shows any of the following:
a. The Circulation Element Amendment will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR;
c. Mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Circulation Element Amendment; or
d. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
B. Public Safety Element Amendment. As the decision-making body for the Public Safety Element Amendment, the City Council finds that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The approval of the Public Safety Element Amendment simply makes legislative changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with state and federal law. As such, there is no possibility that the Public Safety Element Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, no environmental analysis is required and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption with the County of Riverside.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment Findings for GPA2022-0004. Based on the entire record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby reaffirms and incorporates herein by reference the General Plan Amendment Findings for GPA2022-0004 as set forth in Resolution No. 2025-012.
SECTION 4. General Plan Amendment Findings for GPA2024-0002. Based on the entire record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby reaffirms and incorporates herein by reference the General Plan Amendment Findings for GPA2024-0002 as set forth in Resolution No. 2025-014.
4 SECTION 5. Approval of GPA2022-0004. GPA2022-0004 is hereby approved.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Map shall be amended as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 6. Approval of GPA2024-0002. GPA2024-0002 is hereby approved.
The City’s General Plan shall be amended as shown in Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the findings set forth in this Resolution have been based are located at the City of Corona City Hall, 400 S. Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882. The custodian for these records is Joanne Coletta, Planning and Development Director.
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2025.
Mayor of the City of Corona, California
ATTEST:
__
City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
5 CERTIFICATION
I, Sylvia Edwards, City Clerk of the City of Corona, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Corona, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Corona, California, this 19th day of March, 2025.
City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
[SEAL]
6 EXHIBIT “A”
PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE PLAN OF THE GENERAL PLAN
GPA2022-0004
(THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN IS ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE)
AERIAL & LOCATIONAL MAP
CZ2022-0004 & GPA2022-0004
PROMENADE AVE NEAR SIXTH
STREET
Project Site
LI GI GI MU2
Land Use Legend:
GI - General Industrial
GC - General Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
MU2 - Mixed Use 2: Industrial
Commercial East Sixth Street
South Promenade
Avenue
County of Riverside
LI GC Proposed Land Use
GPA2022-0004 - East Sixth Street and South Promenade
Avenue
Seal of Approval
02/18/2025 Existing Proposed
Project Site
LI GI GI MU2
Land Use Legend:
GI - General Industrial
GC - General Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
MU2 - Mixed Use 2: Industrial
Commercial East Sixth Street
South Promenade
Avenue
County of Riverside
LI GC
Project Site
GC LI GI GI MU2
Land Use Legend:
GI - General Industrial
GC - General Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
MU2 - Mixed Use 2: Industrial
Commercial East Sixth Street
South Promenade
Avenue
County of Riverside
Existing
Land Use Legend:
GI - General Industrial
GC - General Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
MU2 - Mixed Use 2:
Industrial Commercial
Land Use Legend:
GI - General Industrial
GC - General Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
MU2 - Mixed Use 2:
Industrial Commercial
7 EXHIBIT “B”
PROPOSED CHANGES TO ROADWAY PLAN OF THE GENERAL PLAN
GPA2024-0002
(THE PROPOSED ROADWAY PLAN IS ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE)
CIRCULATION
Figure CE-1
Roadway Plan
PlaceWorks
ADDENDUM TO THE CORONA GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE EIR FOR THE WEST ONTARIO AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT
CITY OF CORONA
Source: City of Corona 2019.
0 Scale (Miles)
1 15 15
Existing Proposed
BUTTERFIELD DR RINCON ST
RAILROAD ST
RAILROAD ST
N LINCOLN AVE
POMONA
RD
SMITH AVE
SIXTH
ST
RIVER RD
PARKRIDGE
AVE
PARKRIDGE
AVE
H I D D E N VALLEY PK WY
MAIN ST
S LINCOLN AVE
W ONTARIO
AVE
MAIN ST
W FOOTHILL
PKWY
UPPER DR
FULLERTON AVE
KELLOGG AVE
RIMPAU AVE
MAGNOLIA
AVE
MAIN ST
GRAND BLVD
GRAND BLVD
HIGHGROVE
ST
W FOOTHILL
PKWY
SERFAS CLUB DR
PACIFICA
VIA
TENTH ST
91 CALIFORNIA
15 71
CALIFORNIA
BUTTERFIELD DR RINCON ST
RAILROAD ST
RAILROAD ST
N LINCOLN AVE
POMONA
RD
SMITH AVE
SIXTH
ST
RIVER RD
PARKRIDGE
AVE
PARKRIDGE
AVE
H I D D E N VALLEY PK WY
MAIN ST
S LINCOLN AVE
W ONTARIO
AVE
MAIN ST
W FOOTHILL
PKWY
UPPER DR
FULLERTON AVE
KELLOGG AVE
RIMPAU AVE
MAGNOLIA
AVE
MAIN ST
GRAND BLVD
GRAND BLVD
HIGHGROVE
ST
W FOOTHILL
PKWY
SERFAS CLUB DR
PACIFICA
VIA
TENTH ST
91 CALIFORNIA
15 71
CALIFORNIA
Project Site
Figure 6 - Existing and Proposed Roadway Plan
15 CIRCULATION
Figure CE-1
Roadway Plan
Freeway
Major Arterial 6 Lane
Major Arterial 4 Lane
Mixed Use Boulevard 4
Lane Divided/Undivided
Secondary 4 Lane
Collector
Special Residential
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Areas
Proposed
Project Boundary
15 CIRCULATION
Figure CE-1
Roadway Plan
Freeway
Major Arterial 6 Lane
Major Arterial 4 Lane
Mixed Use Boulevard 4
Lane Divided/Undivided
Secondary 4 Lane
Collector
Special Residential
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Areas
Existing
Project Boundary
Project Site
8 EXHIBIT “C”
PROPOSED CHANGES TO TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
GPA2024-0002
(THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE IS ATTACHED AS PAGES 1 -3 BEHIND THIS PAGE)
CORONA GENERAL PLAN 2020-2040 | PS-1
Public Safety
INTRODUCTION
Protecting public health and safety is a fundamental mission of the City of Corona.
While most people are familiar with the police and fire personnel who respond to emergencies, Corona engages in many less visible functions to protect people from natural and human-caused disasters. Building codes, ordinances, transportation route planning, and hazardous materials management efforts are all critical programs that protect property, life, and safety. Indeed, the City’s long-term vision cannot be fully achieved unless the public’s health and safety can be assured.
Like most California cities, Corona has an array of natural and human-caused hazards.
With the many waterways traversing the City, the risk of flooding is a concern. While the hillsides that surround the City offer scenic views, they are also subject to wildfires during summer weather or mudslides during storm events. Corona is also susceptible to earthquakes due to the fault zones crossing the city as well as geologic hazards associated with its topography and soil conditions. Activities associated with commerce and the City's transportation network all present safety hazards as well.
Consistent with its vision, the City of Corona’s efforts to protect the health and safety of the public and business community is guided by the following statement:
Corona is committed to protecting residents, businesses, and visitors from natural and human-induced hazards. The City is also committed to rebuilding from emergencies or disasters in a manner that efficiently and safety returns quality of life to Corona. Residents and visitors will feel safe in their homes, neighborhoods, and public places. Community and regional resources—public, private, and nonprofit—will work together to ensure the safety of all residents and to minimize the disruption caused by emergencies and disasters. By implementing appropriate protocols and programs, the City will become safer, more resilient, and prosperous in return.
For Corona to continue as a desirable place to live and work, the City must continue to comprehensively address the public health and safety needs of its residents, businesses, institutions, and visitors. To achieve the vision of the general plan, this public safety element therefore sets forth proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. As the policies and actions are progressively implemented, the City will be increasingly less impacted by hazards, and in the process, become more self-reliant, sustainable, and prosperous.
PUBLIC SAFETY
PS-2 | CORONA GENERAL PLAN 2020-2040
Scope of Element
California State law, specifically the Government Code § 65302(1), requires that each city prepare and adopt a safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with a wide variety of natural and manmade hazards. This legislation encompasses a wide range of safety hazards commonly found in communities, including climate change hazards. This element addresses:
» Natural Hazards. Natural hazards include a range of seismic and geologic hazards, flooding hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, and severe weather, most of which are caused by inclement weather or natural events. » Human-Caused Hazards. These include air pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards that are caused by human activities. Other transportation- and public safety hazards are addressed in other elements of the general plan. » Emergency Response and Preparedness. This refers to the range of procedures, methods, protocols, and staff the City of Corona uses to response and prepare for emergencies and disasters, respond to them, and recover from them.
This public safety element is intended to: 1) recognize the local hazards associated with Corona’s environment, and 2) identify methods to manage these risks and protect people, property, infrastructure, and structures from harm.
Related Plans
Corona’s public safety element is implemented by various strategic plans that protect the community from individual hazards. Some of these plans are provided by the City; others are provided by other organizations.
» Police Department Strategic Plan. The Corona Police Department prepares an annual police strategic plan that contains an assessment of safety in Corona, staffing and resource allocation, and sets short and long-range goals for the future.
The plan is also used evaluate outcomes and progress to meet department goals. » Fire Department Strategic Plan. The Corona Fire Department prepares an annual fire department strategic plan that sets short and long-range goals for its operations, training, and other safety outcomes. These outcomes are based on best practice, periodic organizational reviews, and city needs. » Emergency Operations Plan. Corona’s EOP is intended to address the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan addresses potential large-scale disasters requiring unusual emergency response. » Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Corona’s LHMP identifies hazards and establishes a plan to prepare for emergencies and prevent or mitigate potential impacts. The City Council adopted its 2017 LHMP, and this general plan references and is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs specified therein. » The LHMP for the City of Corona planning area was developed in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The
PUBLIC SAFETY
CORONA GENERAL PLAN 2020-2040 | PS-3
LHMP incorporates a process where hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed, and mitigation actions are developed to reduce or eliminate risk. The implementation of these mitigation actions, which include both short-term and long-term strategies, involve planning, policy changes, programs, mitigation projects, and other activities. The County of Riverside Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP can be found here. MJLHMP 8.7.23.pdf (rivcoready.org)
The next sections provide context for each safety hazard presented, followed by goals and policies to achieve the general plan vision.
SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Corona’s location and underlying geology make it susceptible to seismic and geologic hazards. Corona is situated between two active fault zones—the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone and the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Other potentially active faults nearby include the San Jose, Cucamonga, Sierra Madre, Newport-Inglewood, and San Andreas. While the City has not experienced a major earthquake, it is prudent to plan for such to minimize potential damage to the community, injury, and loss of life. The primary seismic and geologic hazards in Corona are summarized below.
Seismic Hazards
Seismic activity has been known to cause ground displacement along a fault or within the general vicinity of a fault zone. Surface rupturing could damage or destroy infrastructure, pipelines, roads, and bridges. Much of the western portion of the city extending southeast through the SOI is within a fault zone. Two active surface faults— the Chino Fault and Glen Ivy segment of the Elsinore Fault—could produce earthquakes of 7M, causing surface ground ruptures. Areas with known surface rupture hazards are identified as Alquist Priolo Special Study Zones. Primary ground rupture can also be expected to spread out into secondary areas.
Ground shaking refers to the motion of the Earth’s surface from an earthquake. Ground shaking is responsible for the majority of damage from earthquakes and can damage or destroy buildings, structures, pipelines, and infrastructure. The intensity of shaking depends on the type of fault, distance to the epicenter, magnitude of the earthquake, and subsurface geology. The Elsinore Fault is the dominant active fault and is capable of producing a 6.8 to 7.0 M earthquake. The greatest severity of ground shaking would occur in central Corona, Temescal Valley, and northern Corona.
Liquefaction happens when strong ground shaking causes soils that are saturated with groundwater to lose strength and behave more like a liquid than a solid. Where liquefaction occurs, the ground may give way, causing damage or destroying structures, foundations, and infrastructure. Susceptibility to liquefaction depends on the strength and duration of ground shaking, soil characteristics, and depth to the groundwater. Loose, granular materials at depths of less than 50 feet, with silt or clay contents below 30 percent, and saturated by groundwater are most susceptible. Areas at moderate-to-high risk run the entire length of Corona in areas north of SR-91.
Future Agenda Item Request Form
Future agenda items should be limited to new issues that emerge during the course of the year that are urgent and cannot wait until the next priority setting session of Council before requiring action.
Name: Wes Speake
Date: 3/12/2025
Title Name/Topic: Feather Flag Permit Amendments
Background
1. What is the purpose for the request i.e. what you are trying to achieve or do? I understand that we allow 10 per property for up to 120 days. o How many permits do we issue a year? Y2022: 12 permits, Y2023: 22 permits, and Y2024: 29 permits.
o How often are permits for 10 vs some other #? The average number of flags per permit is 3.
o I know maintaining condition is requirment in the permit, do we regular inspect those or are visits happenstance? The conditions of the flags are normally inspected by Code Compliance during field visits to ensure the flags are erected with a valid permit.
o Can the flags stay out for 120 days straight or does it have to broken up? Both options are allowed as long as the number of days in a 12 month period does not exceed 120 days.
o Can I get a copy of a permit, a representative sample? The following link will take you to the city’s application that is available online TEMPORARY USE PERMIT v2.doc
2. What is the scope of the work you wish to see done?
Explore changes to reduce the # of flags and time to limit to special events not a regular feature
3. Does this request align with the City’s Strategic Plan? How? #5 Sense of Place
4. What is the desired timeline to have the issue considered by Council? Soon
5. Is the issue urgent requiring action before the next priority setting session of Council (Fall Workshop)?
Yes
Staff Section (To be completed by staff)
Approximate Staff Time Required: ____ Hours
Approximate Cost: $ ____
Future Agenda Item Request Form
Future agenda items should be limited to new issues that emerge during the course of the year that are urgent and cannot wait until the next priority setting session of Council before requiring action.
Name: Wes Speake
Date: 3/12/2025
Title Name/Topic: Explore CMC ordinance changes to set time limits for specific for Temp fencing and boarded up windows
Background
1. What is the purpose for the request i.e. what you are trying to achieve or do? o At what point is temporary fencing not temporary?
o Can we set a time limit for temporary fencing? The municipal code allows temporary fencing for vacant lots, agricultural areas or similar uses for security purposes. It does not limit the amount of time the fencing can be up because it can be used for more than one purpose. For example, it is unknown when a vacant parcel may be developed, and the temporary fencing is used to deter illegal dumping on the property.
Plan amendment or by zone? To impose a time limit, the municipal code would need to be amended.
o Can we set a time limit for boarded up windows? To impose a time limit, the municipal code would need to be amended.
Plan amendment or by zone?
o Other communities don't have issues like this, what they doing that we aren't? Staff has not researched the extent of this issue in other cities. But I would venture to guess they do have issues like these.
o What can we do legally to address the appearance of properties? The city follows the regulations provided in the city’s Property Maintenance Ordinance, CMC Chapter 8.32. The ordinance does recognize vacant properties and the way they are to be maintained. Buildings or structures, including the premises on which it is located, that have been vacant for more than 90 days do not constitute a public nuisance if the property is being actively maintained and monitored. Active maintenance and monitoring include no unlocked or unsecured vacant buildings and are boarded up by a material or method approved by the Building Official, maintenance of the landscaping, maintenance of the exterior of the building, regular removal of trash, debris and graffiti, the building is in compliance with codes and regulations (structural compliance), and criminal activity is being prevented on the property.
2. What is the scope of the work you wish to see done?
Explore changes to prevent Parkridge and Main from reoccurring or Wells Fargo building build limbo
3. Does this request align with the City’s Strategic Plan? How? #5 Sense of Place
4. What is the desired timeline to have the issue considered by Council? Soon
5. Is the issue urgent requiring action before the next priority setting session of Council (Fall Workshop)?
Yes
Staff Section (To be completed by staff)
Approximate Staff Time Required: ____ Hours
Approximate Cost: $ ____
Future Agenda Item Request Form
Future agenda items should be limited to new issues that emerge during the course of the year that are urgent and cannot wait until the next priority setting session of Council before requiring action.
Name: Wes Speake
Date: 3/12/2025
Title Name/Topic: Explore Cordon Pricing of the Foothill Corridor to deter cut through traffic
Background
1. What is the purpose for the request i.e. what you are trying to achieve or do? With the pending project on the 241/91, the ever increase toll rates, the continued state of construction, the state mandated building of housing units south and east of Corona and no alternative transportation methods in the immediate future. Foothill will continue to be the alternative to the 91 and 15 and unfairly impact to the streets and citizens of Corona.
I would like to eliminate one of the incentives to cutting though Corona which is skipping the toll lanes or cutting through Corona. This traffic impacts Coronans ability to move freely in our city and accelerating wear and tear on city streets. By implementing Cordon Pricing for use of the Foothill corridor or other east west drives to “Cut-Through “ Corona.
What is the Cordon pricing?
Cordon area congestion pricing is a fee or tax paid by users to enter a restricted area, as part of a demand management strategy to relieve traffic congestion within that area.
The idea would be to set up license plate readers at Green River Road and other Corona on and off ramps on the 91 and corresponding on and off ramps on the 15. If you trigger both an on or off ramp on both the 91 and 15 within a 60min time frame, you pay a toll equivalent to the 91/15 tolls for the same distance. Corona Residents who trigger both will receive a 90% discount or more on the rate.
mobilitygozone_report_final.pdf SCAG report
2. What is the scope of the work you wish to see done?
Complete a preliminary feasibility study to determine legal feasibility, constructability and cordon pricing strategy, implementation costs and possible partnerships with agencies.
Including potential revenue and specifying/restricting where this revenue could be spent.
3. Does this request align with the City’s Strategic Plan? How? #3 Sound Infrastructure- Connecting with our past
4. What is the desired timeline to have the issue considered by Council? Can wait until Policy workshop
5. Is the issue urgent requiring action before the next priority setting session of Council (Fall Workshop)?
No
Staff Section (To be completed by staff)
Approximate Staff Time Required: ____ Hours
Approximate Cost: $ ____
Future Agenda Item Request Form
Future agenda items should be limited to new issues that emerge during the course of the year that are urgent and cannot wait until the next priority setting session of Council before requiring action.
Name: Wes Speake
Date: 3/12/2025
Title Name/Topic: Review/amend section 17.63.120 Alteration, relocation or demolition of historic resources, specifically (D) (6)
Background
1. What is the purpose for the request i.e. what you are trying to achieve or do? The way the section is currently written no building is off limits to demolition. Meaning that iconic buildings like the Corona Theater could be demo ’ed without comment except the planning director.
Here is the scenario- Theater owner decide to sell to a housing developer, he wants to build a Mixed-Use apartment project. Current zoning is Commercial, the site is listed as a Downtown Mixed Use in the General plan. The developer’s intent is adaptive reuse of the building. Leave the exterior and theatre and covert the old offices to apartments and ground floor into a shops. Zone change is granted. 6months later. The developer comes back as says it’s not penciling; costs have increased and he will not get “all economically viable use of the site” files for a demo permit and because the sentence below they would legally have to be issued the demo permit. Not initiating any project that would trigger CEQA. Yes, we move to buy it, he would not have to sell, we could use imminent domain but it could only be a pubic project and forever…
(6) Any plan involving the relocation or demolition of an historic resource listed on the Corona Register shall not be approved unless one of the following findings is made:
(a) The criteria required to delete the historic resource from the Corona Register set forth in § 17.63.110(E) are satisfied;
(b) The historic resource has deteriorated or been modified to the extent that it is no longer representative as an historic resource to be preserved; (c) Denial of the requested relocation or demolition of the historic resource will deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the site; (d) Relocation or demolition of the historic resource will not have a significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this chapter and appropriate mitigation measures will be undertaken to substantially reduce or eliminate the loss or diminishment of the historic resource;
I don’t think the city needs to be savior for all things and always swoop in to save the day or let a historic resource be destroyed. We regulate private property now; i.e AirBnB use and others why shouldn’t this be as important.
2. What is the scope of the work you wish to see done?
Delete 6 (c) and replace with (c) relocation or demolition of any building that is listed as High or High with Rehab on the city list of Historic properties be subject to CEQA review for Historic resources and approval by the Historic Commission and City Council
Many cities require the same level of review for demolition of historic properties including Oceanside,
3. Does this request align with the City’s Strategic Plan? How? #5 Sense of Place- Connecting with our past
4. What is the desired timeline to have the issue considered by Council? Within reason as one of the ten 5 buildings is in the queue to be demo’ed not expecting them to be lined up.
5. Is the issue urgent requiring action before the next priority setting session of Council (Spring Workshop)?
Yes
Staff Section (To be completed by staff)
Approximate Staff Time Required: ____ Hours
Approximate Cost: $ ____