Corona City Council
July 1, 2026

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) included an analysis of potential impacts to National Forest lands and resources in Sections 4.6.2, 5.1.3, 6.1.3 and 6.2.8. Urban and Wildlands interface measures are discussed in Section 9.5 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR), minimize edge effects to National Forest Lands. The risk of fire caused by the occupation of the Skyline development is not expected to rise above the level currently assessed as a result of existing home sites and foot traffic along trails. Indirect impacts on the National Forest will be reduced through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, including Best Management Practices to maintain water quality; using project lighting that not intrude into open space areas; the use of selective fencing control entry to the National Forest; the control of invasive non-native species.

Updated focused botanical surveys and habitat mapping effort were conducted between April and August in 2016 and is documented in the Updated Biological Assessment report (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the RDEIR. The surveys identified the presence of ± 5,343 chaparral nolina, 2.33 acres of needlegrass grassland, and 10.25 acres of AFSS on the project site. Impacts to sensitive plants and plant communities were reevaluated relative to the new results and are detailed in Section 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR).

Response to Comment 6-12.

Spatial Extent of Fuel Management Area
The Draft EIR addresses the biological resources impacts of the project in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessments, surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation, while the RDEIR addressed these resources in Section 4.C, with supporting analysis and documentation provided in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment included as Appendix A. As indicated on page 4.C-19 of the Draft EIR and on page 4.C-39 of the RDEIR, the biological surveys in support of the biological resources analysis, and the analysis of project impacts on biological resources in Draft EIR Section 4.C and Appendix D and RDEIR Section 4.C and Appendix A, assume that the “Impact Area” shown in Figures 4.C-2 through 4.C-6 would be disturbed under the project. This “Impact Area” includes the proposed fuel modification zone shown in Figures 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning). Therefore, rather than the analysis assuming that the fuel modification zone is part of the surrounding open space area and would not be disturbed, the analysis assumes it would be part of the disturbed area (e.g., “Impact Area”) or development footprint, and attributes biological resources impacts to it as part of the greater project.

Selection of Plan Species for Fuel Modification Zone
The impact calculations considered by L&L Environmental, Inc. and evaluated in the EIR include the fuel management impacts plus a buffer of an additional 10 feet around the entire development to ensure maximum impacts were considered.

The Biological Resources section of the EIR was recirculated as part of the RDEIR in order to better assess the project impacts. The following mitigation measure was added in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the EIR to address potential impacts from the project design.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5. The project Applicant shall add more common cultivar forms of Coulter’s matilija poppy to the list of plants to be avoided in site landscaping, including White Cloud City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-77

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
matilija poppy. Additional non-native plants to be avoided in any onsite mitigation or landscaping include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). To ensure these non-native plants are not used in landscaping within the project site, the project Applicant shall include a list of plant species to avoid within the CC&Rs for the development. The project applicant shall also develop and distribute a suitable homeowner education package to residents / new owners covering the species to avoid.

The City of Corona and County of Riverside have requirements for fuel modification zones.

Where possible and appropriate for the species, the locally derived plantings of the species recommended by the CNPS will be included in the fuel modification zone.

The recommendation to avoid Baccharis pilularis and Atriplex canescens is incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5, which includes these species in the list of species to be avoided in both onsite mitigation and landscaping. See also the preceding response.

Response to Comment 6-13. In the recirculated Biological Resources section of the EIR, additoinal mitigation measures have been included to compensate for project impacts. The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the EIR includes the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to streambeds to a no net loss level:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of

10.07 acres of streambed and wetlands due to project construction, project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (via issuance and implementation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 1600) to replace affected streambed at not less than a 2:1 basis, as specified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, through a combination of offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of the streambed. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment.

The project proponent will enter into a agreement with CDFW and the Resource Conservation Authority to ensure design related impacts to streambeds and riparian/riverine habitat are reduced to the greatest extent practicable while also accomplishing the project goal(s).

The design attempted to minimize impacts to drainages, and Alternative designs are discussed in Section 8 of the Updated Biological Assessment. Impacts to both Feature 1 and 3 are required to create a secondary access point for project transportation circulation and public safety. Complete avoidance would remove efficient looped water system within the Project and risk in fire situations would be increased. To avoid impacts to the features and still maintain two access points, development would be limited to the northern third of the project site. This alternative would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements. If this alternative were advanced, the project would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements and it is likely that the southern two thirds of the project site would be subdivided and sold to produce revenue to offset development costs. See Response to Comment 3-3 above for more detail.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-78

January 19, 2016
Attn: Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
City of Corona
Community Development Department
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882-2187
RE: Skyline Heights Project; GPA 13-003, CZ 13-002, Annexation 117, TTM 36544 After review of the proposed mitigation measures, we found some specific concerns with the language being proposed.

I have made some substantial edits to the language in the mitigation measures. Formal edits by the Soboba Band are listed below:
• If inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are encountered at any time during construction, these materials and their context shall be avoided until a qualified archaeologist and representatives from both The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians have consulted with the City of Corona regarding appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for newly discovered resources. Project personnel shall not collect or retain cultural resources.

Prehistoric resources include but are not limited to: chert or obsidian flakes; projectile points; mortars and pestles; dark, friable soil containing shell and bone; dietary to debris; heat – affected rock; or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits (Glass, metal, wood, or ceramics), often found in old Wells and privies. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. • All sacred items, should they be encountered within the project site, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation if feasible. All cultural materials that are collected during excavation and other earths disturbing activities on the project site with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and human remains shall reach final disposition through one or more of the following methods:
a. A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts.

LETTER 7
1 2

b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified institution within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study and for the option of repatriation through the NAGPRA process to federally recognized Indian Tribes. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate institution for curation within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
• If more than one Native American Group is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center by default.

As a follow up to these comments, The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians is requesting to initiate formal consultation with the City of Corona. A meeting can be scheduled by contacting me via email or phone. All contact information has been included in this letter.

I look forward to hearing from and meeting with you soon.

Sincerely,
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Phone (951) 654-5544 ext. 4137
Cell (951) 663-5279
[email protected]
Confidentiality: The entirety of the contents of this letter shall remain confidential between Soboba and the City of Corona. No part of the contents of this letter may be shared, copied, or utilized in any way with any other individual, entity, municipality, or tribe, whatsoever, without the expressed written permission of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. 2 (cont.)
3

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 7
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
Response to Letter 7
Response to Comment 7-1 through 7-3. Please see Response to Comment 8-1 (Letter 8, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-81

1 David Crook
From: Jason Moquin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:17 PM
To: David Crook
Cc: Joseph Ontiveros (Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians); Anna Hoover (Pechanga Band of Mission Indians); 'Ebru Ozdil ([email protected])' Subject: Cultural Resources Mitigation Skyline Heights Final EIR David,
Please see below. These need to be incorporated in the EIR and some may be duplicative of those that are existing.

1. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction; the Project Applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. As a result of the SB18 Consultation request, the appropriate tribe (s) has been determined to be the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

2. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist.

4. If inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are encountered at any time during construction, these materials and their context shall be avoided until a qualified archeologist and a representative from the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribes or bands have consulted with the City of Corona regarding appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for the newly discovered resources. Construction personnel shall not collect or retain cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to: chert or obsidian flakes; projectile points; mortars and pestles; dark, friable soil containing shell and bone; dietary debris; heat-affected rock; or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits (glass, metal, wood, ceramics), often found in old wells and privies. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archeological resources.

5. All sacred sites, should they be encountered, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

6. All discoveries of cultural resources shall be curated at the Western Science Center, a qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, for curations purposes at the Western Science Center within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

7. Should construction/development activities uncover paleontological resources, work will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of these resources. If the find is LETTER 8
1

2 determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover and evaluate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines.

8. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subdivision (e), in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified and construction activities at the affected work site shall be halted. If the remains are found to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours. The NAHC must immediately notify the Most Likely Descendant(s) under Public Resources Code §5097.98 and the descendants must make recommendations or preference for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98.

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
“Promoting and Sustaining Quality Development”

City of Corona | Community Development Department
400 S. Vicentia Ave. | Corona, CA 92882
(951) 736-2268 office | (951) 279-3550 fax
Business Hours: Mon-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM
www.discovercorona.com
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 (cont.)

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 8
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
Response to Letter 8
Response to Comment 8-1. As requested by the commenter, based on input received in this and other comment letters from affected tribal groups, the existing archaeological and Native American resources mitigation on page 4.D-20 of the Draft EIR has been modified as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-84

This petition has collected
88 signatures
using the online tools at iPetitions.com
Printed on 2016-01-19

LETTER 9

Call for Temporary Moratorium on New Homes in Corona
About this petition
The following petition requests the following of the City of Corona and its representatives:

1. An immediate moratorium on all future new home development for a period of no less than five (5) years following the completion of all current home, freeway, and roadway construction currently in progress. This would include any homes in the planning stages such is those represented in the Skyline Heights project.

2. During this time and until the end of the five (5) year moritorium, Corona City would conduct a study, develop and present a report to its citizens that the current and immediate future infrastructure would be present to support any further development.

3. In addition, the City of Corona should provide it's citizens a well reasoned argument as to why new home development is necessary and beneficial to the current citizens within it's community.

This petition is for Corona, California residents.

The goal of this petition is NOT to ban all future home development, but to provide a moment of pause while we gain a genuine understanding of our current and immediate future situation with regard to traffic flow and infrastructural support.

1

Signatures

1. Name: Eric Peterson on 2016-01-13 05:11:41
Comments:

2. Name: Rosario Rivera on 2016-01-13 05:26:00
Comments:

3. Name: Debi Savicky on 2016-01-13 05:30:08
Comments:

4. Name: Roseann Moore on 2016-01-13 05:30:48
Comments:

5. Name: Sandra Marsh on 2016-01-13 05:35:10
Comments:

6. Name: Lisa Farragut on 2016-01-13 05:36:08
Comments:

7. Name: sal on 2016-01-13 05:38:40
Comments:

8. Name: Randy Coots on 2016-01-13 05:53:28
Comments:

9. Name: Ron Papp on 2016-01-13 05:54:26
Comments:

10. Name: Autumn Berte on 2016-01-13 06:00:45
Comments:

11. Name: Jennifer campbell on 2016-01-13 06:02:37
Comments:

12. Name: Michael dehdashtian on 2016-01-13 06:08:22
Comments:

13. Name: Annie Duenas on 2016-01-13 06:10:03
Comments:

14. Name: Matt Olsen on 2016-01-13 06:11:11

Comments:

15. Name: Kirsten OReilly on 2016-01-13 06:18:07
Comments: Infrastructure and resident safety needs to come first.

16. Name: Nicole krenzin on 2016-01-13 06:30:22
Comments: I can't see how more homes can even be an option when traffic is as bad as it is. And where are all these new kids going to go to school? Please stop building on every plot of open land...what's left of the open space is one of the only things that makes it appealing.

17. Name: Eloisa Serna on 2016-01-13 06:30:38
Comments: The housing development needs to slow down and I totally agree with and believe studies will help understand the impact these new homes have made.

18. Name: Cynthia Cooke on 2016-01-13 06:32:37
Comments:

19. Name: Julie trapp on 2016-01-13 06:43:58
Comments: Please, temporarily step back and choose the best direction for the citizens of this community!!

20. Name: Mari Carter on 2016-01-13 06:50:27
Comments:

21. Name: Nathan tayloe on 2016-01-13 06:53:34
Comments: Slow it down just a little, getting out of control.

22. Name: Julie Bruckner on 2016-01-13 07:00:13
Comments:

23. Name: Chris Peck on 2016-01-13 07:01:13
Comments:

24. Name: Nate taylor on 2016-01-13 07:05:33
Comments:

25. Name: Mike mcclelland on 2016-01-13 07:50:21
Comments: More business less homes!!

26. Name: Sangita Patel on 2016-01-13 08:42:47
Comments: We're on a stage 3 water shortage, yet more houses are being built, our high schools are overpacked with students and will be impacted more unless new schools are

2 3
4 5
6 7
8

built and of course road construction is taking place throughout the whole city-please share your plans if you already have taken these points plus more into consideration.

27. Name: Teresa Froesch on 2016-01-13 08:59:40
Comments:

28. Name: Brian Osterhout on 2016-01-13 09:17:32
Comments:

29. Name: Ricardo Martinez on 2016-01-13 13:33:42
Comments:

30. Name: Ronald R Papp on 2016-01-13 13:46:59
Comments: Let's do this.............

31. Name: Lindsey Wilcox on 2016-01-13 14:07:24
Comments:

32. Name: Lora Papp on 2016-01-13 14:23:15
Comments:

33. Name: Allison Snorek on 2016-01-13 14:33:09
Comments:

34. Name: Chad Williams on 2016-01-13 14:57:40
Comments:

35. Name: Kathy Heitmann on 2016-01-13 15:04:06
Comments:

36. Name: Elaine Hicks on 2016-01-13 15:23:04
Comments: Our city streets and freeways can't handle anymore traffic. Our schools and prisons are full. Our infrastructure needs attention before we can think about building more homes. There isn't enough water for the current homes located in Corona and Riverside.

37. Name: Elizabeth Cardenas on 2016-01-13 15:45:31
Comments:

38. Name: Kelly Bach on 2016-01-13 16:31:46
Comments:

8 (cont.) 9
10

39. Name: Brad Roekle on 2016-01-13 17:11:05
Comments: No more homes. We have enough for now. The new freeway expansion isn't even expected to be completed until 2017 and we don't even know what kind of impact that will do to the morning/evening commute.

40. Name: Jan Lewis on 2016-01-13 17:11:36
Comments:

41. Name: Christina on 2016-01-13 17:21:05
Comments:

42. Name: Kami Leonard on 2016-01-13 17:45:41
Comments:

43. Name: Caroline Wise on 2016-01-13 17:51:09
Comments:

44. Name: Brittany Baker on 2016-01-13 17:51:15
Comments:

45. Name: Bobbi Hamby on 2016-01-13 18:02:12
Comments:

46. Name: Tara Upchurch on 2016-01-13 18:36:36
Comments:

47. Name: Amy on 2016-01-13 20:01:45
Comments:

48. Name: Kelly Vande Vegte on 2016-01-13 21:47:28
Comments:

49. Name: Joyce Hanz on 2016-01-14 00:06:52
Comments:

50. Name: mark rogers on 2016-01-14 00:35:04
Comments:

51. Name: Melissa on 2016-01-14 03:50:31
Comments:

52. Name: Sara Thompson on 2016-01-14 03:51:43

11

Comments:

53. Name: Shelley brown on 2016-01-14 05:11:54
Comments:

54. Name: Scott Arnold on 2016-01-14 06:29:11
Comments:

55. Name: Michelle Arnold on 2016-01-14 15:08:54
Comments: Enough is enough, schools over crowded not to mention traffic, crime and the already packed streets from existing construction

56. Name: Laura Sellman on 2016-01-14 15:19:30
Comments:

57. Name: Angie Rihner Labuda on 2016-01-14 16:07:35
Comments:

58. Name: Robert G Manzo on 2016-01-14 18:51:25
Comments:

59. Name: Donna on 2016-01-15 13:45:58
Comments: We need to stop building just because there is open land. We need to put the current residents first. The infrastructure, roads, schools, and water cannot support the mindless growth. . We need to stop Corona from annexing additional land just to build more homes.

We need more businesses in Corona not more homes.

60. Name: Michael Collins on 2016-01-15 13:54:25
Comments:

61. Name: Mohammed dibas on 2016-01-15 14:04:29
Comments:

62. Name: Mary kunkle on 2016-01-15 14:12:57
Comments:

63. Name: Justin massey on 2016-01-15 14:19:49
Comments:

64. Name: Jeaneen Cockrell on 2016-01-15 15:00:12
Comments:

1213

65. Name: Valen Hoffman on 2016-01-15 15:22:42
Comments: No more homes!

66. Name: Karl Weckwerth on 2016-01-15 16:29:28
Comments:

67. Name: Kim Lord on 2016-01-15 17:03:56
Comments:

68. Name: Susan Friedhoff on 2016-01-15 17:14:59
Comments:

69. Name: John Phalen on 2016-01-15 17:23:58
Comments:

70. Name: Agnieszka Guzzetti on 2016-01-15 17:58:40
Comments:

71. Name: Andrea Shallanberger on 2016-01-15 19:17:07
Comments: No more new homes, please, until roads can be made to accommodate even more traffic. Improvements on the 91 and 15 should be finished before a true study can be conducted. Thanks!

72. Name: Bill Hancock on 2016-01-15 21:13:33
Comments:

73. Name: Nichole Reyes on 2016-01-15 22:19:18
Comments:

74. Name: Marc J Kaplan on 2016-01-15 23:09:38
Comments:

75. Name: Kari Broy on 2016-01-16 02:05:02
Comments:

76. Name: Connie Mckenney on 2016-01-16 03:21:53
Comments:

77. Name: Amanda Garcia on 2016-01-16 03:48:19
Comments:

78. Name: JoDel Clark on 2016-01-16 04:32:31

14

Comments:

79. Name: Christina leiblic on 2016-01-16 05:16:36
Comments:

80. Name: Jennifer Lara on 2016-01-16 05:53:58
Comments:

81. Name: Gladys Granados on 2016-01-16 06:07:58
Comments:

82. Name: Katrina Armstrong on 2016-01-16 06:23:13
Comments:

83. Name: Annie Tang on 2016-01-16 15:08:19
Comments: We understand the City of Corona wants to generate revenue, and new home development is extremely lucrative. However, as a responsible city, it is your obligation to ensure the growth of new home development is acceptable with the current infrastructure. The apartment homes have multiplied over the last 2 years, needless to say, the traffic condition has worsen significantly. If the growth and development for our infrastructure are not increasing in a ratio that is acceptable to accommodate planned housing growth, then it would be criminal to ignore our request to pause housing development.

84. Name: Curtis Taylor on 2016-01-17 03:02:31
Comments:

85. Name: Susan Wright on 2016-01-17 03:55:44
Comments: We need more open space, not more homes.

86. Name: Bridget Smith on 2016-01-17 17:36:22
Comments:

87. Name: Amy Welch on 2016-01-19 05:48:54
Comments:

88. Name: Donna Peterson on 2016-01-19 05:55:48
Comments:

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

15 16

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 9
Petition-Moratorium
iPetitions.com
Response to Letter 9
Response to Comment 9-1. The comment requesting an immediate moratorium on all future new home development, and an associated study, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the portion of the comment requesting that the City of Corona provide its citizens a well reasoned argument as to why new home development is necessary and beneficial to the current citizens within the community, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the following:
(a) “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable”. (b) “When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
(c) “If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.” The project would result in significant unavoidable aesthetics (e.g., views, scenic vistas, visual resources, and visual character) impacts as identified in Section 6.1, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, consistent with the above requirements, the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding its significant unavoidable impacts, are set forth on pages 6-1 and 6-2 of the Draft EIR, and include: (1) the project would achieve a considerable number of City-related project objectives; and (2) the significant unavoidable impacts of the project are based on landform alteration and would occur with any construction of the project site (see pages 6-1 and 6-2 for further discussion. In addition, if the City decides to approve the project, it will be required to prepare a statement of overriding considerations for inclusion in the record and notice of determination which explains why the City is approving the project despite the project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

Response to Comment 9-2. This comment regarding infrastructure and resident safety is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the comment of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-94

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 9-3. The Draft EIR evaluated traffic impacts in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix K, and evaluated impacts to schools in Section 4.L. As indicated on pages 4.M-24 and 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant construction traffic impact with implementation of the proposed Construction Management Plan and less than significant operational traffic impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures (including along the recently completed Foothill Parkway Extension and along Green River Road, etc.). As indicated on page 4.L-26 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts on public services (including schools) with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures and payment of applicable development fees (including the requisite California Government Code Section 65995 (e.g., SB 50) school mitigation fees), and would not require the construction of new schools. (See Comment 67-5 (Letter Courtney Kasey) and Comment 70-3 (Letter Courtney Kasey).

With regard to the request to stop building “on every plot of open land”, and the statement that open space is one of the only things that makes it appealing, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-4. The comment that housing development needs to slow down is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warrant.

With regard to the comment that studies will help understand the impact these new homes will have, the Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and fully evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. The Draft EIR: evaluates the impacts of the project in terms 15 separate environmental issues (aesthetics, biological resources, noise, transportation, etc.), including cumulative impacts, in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis; evaluates feasible alternative to the project in Chapter 5, Alternatives; and evaluates the significant unavoidable impacts, growth-inducing impacts, potential secondary effects, and other CEQA-mandated impacts associated with the project in Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations. These analyses are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to technical studies (e.g., Biological Resources Assessment, Noise Impact Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, etc.) provided in the technical appendices of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 9-5. This comment requesting that the City step back and choose the best direction for the citizens of the community is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-6. This comments requesting that the City slow it down a little, and that it’s getting out of control, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-7. This comment, stating more business less homes, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-8. The Draft EIR evaluated impacts to water supply in Section 4.N, Utilities and City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-95

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Service Systems, with supporting data provided in the Water Study included in Appendix L. As indicated on page 4.N-34 of the Draft EIR, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing and proposed entitlements and resources, and impacts regarding water supplies would be less than significant.

The analysis includes consideration of whether sufficient water supplies would exist in addition to the existing and planned future demands on the City during a normal year, single-dry year, and multiple dry years, and is based, in part, on water supply data included in the adopted City of Corona 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.N-38 and 4.N-39 of the Draft EIR, the project would comply with all required City water conservation requirements. Lastly, because adequate water supplies are available to serve the project based on existing and proposed water supply entitlements and resources, approval of the project would not require further water conservation by City of Corona residents.

With regard to project impacts on schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

Response to Comment 9-9. This comment, stating “Let’s do this”, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-10. With regard to the impacts of the project on traffic and schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

With regard to infrastructure, the draft EIR evaluated roadway infrastructure in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the TIA in Appendix K, and evaluated utility infrastructure in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, with supporting data provided in the Water, Recycled Water and Sewer Studies in Appendix L. As indicated on page 4.M-44 and 4.N-61 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts to roadway and utility infrastructure with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures.

With regard to the water supply impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-8 above.

Response to Comment 9-11. The comment stating “No more homes. We have enough for now”, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comment that improvements currently underway on the SR-91 and I-15 freeways should be finished before the traffic study for the project is conducted, it would not be practical or reasonable to require that the cited improvements to regional facilities such as the 91 and 15 Freeways be constructed and operational before preparing the project TIA. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the improvements to be completed to provide an adequate evaluation of future traffic conditions, as accepted industry practice for traffic forecasting utilizes computer models that can account for the presence of future improvements, including those to local freeways in the area. Thus, the project TIA assumes that improvements to the 91 Freeway, on- and off-ramps for which are among the affected facilities analyzed in the TIA’s study area, are completed prior to operation of the proposed project. This assumption is reasonable given the relative timing of the freeway improvements (which are currently under construction and nearing completion in the western portion of the City of Corona) and implementation of the project (which will necessarily follow City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-96

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
completion of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, construction of which has recently been completed), and thus future conditions that are assumed in the analysis of project impacts in the TIA reflect reasonably foreseeable future traffic conditions in the area and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-12. The comment “Enough is enough” is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to traffic and schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3.

With regard to police protection (e.g., crime), the Draft EIR evaluated police protection in Section 4.L, Public Services, with supporting correspondence and background information provided in Appendix J. As indicated on pages 4.L-14 and 4.L-15 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant police protection impacts with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (including the set aside of land within the project site for a CPD radio facility, if required), implementation of the proposed project design features, and implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-4 requiring the payment of required service and development fees to the City to fund CPD capital costs associated with acquiring land for new police facilities, constructing new police facilities, and providing for additional CPD staff.

Response to Comment 9-13. The comments stating the need to stop building just because there is open land, putting current residents first, stopping Corona from annexing additional land just to build more homes, and the need for more businesses in Corona rather than more homes are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the infrastructure/roads, schools, and water supply impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 9-10, 9-3 and 9-8, respectively, above.

Response to Comment 9-14. The comments stating no more home until roads can be made to accommodate the traffic is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the ability of roads to accommodate project traffic, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

With regard to the comment that improvements currently underway on the SR-91 and I-15 freeways should be finished before the traffic study for the project is conducted, please see Response to Comment 9-11 above.

Response to Comment 9-15. The request to pause housing development until infrastructure in the City is able to accommodate it is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted With regard to the traffic and infrastructure impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 and 9-10, respectively, above.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-97

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 9-16. The comment stating the need for more open space, not more homes, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-98

1 David Crook
From: Jason Moquin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:19 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights
Please see additional correspondence.

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
“Promoting and Sustaining Quality Development”

City of Corona | Community Development Department
400 S. Vicentia Ave. | Corona, CA 92882
(951) 736-2268 office | (951) 279-3550 fax
Business Hours: Mon-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM
www.discovercorona.com
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Jason Moquin
Subject: Skyline Heights
Dear Mr. Moquin,
I am writing in regards to the proposed Skyline Heights development. We have spoken before regarding this issue, but this is my formal request to be sent any and all public notices regarding the project. This email also serves as my formal objection to the project. I oppose the project for the following reasons:
-Traffic in our neighborhoods, surface streets and freeways are already beyond horrible. It takes my husband at least an hour and a half, each way, to get to his job in Irvine. Almost half of that hour and a half is dimply getting TO the 91 freeway. Adding more homes (on top of the already in progress development above Green River) would only serve to congest our streets further, and we simply CANNOT handle any more cars. I do not believe that the 91 project or the foothill extension will provide any relief because of all of the new homes already being built in corona. Not to mention the 8,000+ homes that we're just approved just outside our Southern border in the City of Lake Elsinore.
-There is simply not enough infrastructure to support all of these new homes. Our streets and freeways are often times impassable, making it a pain to even do the simplest of tasks; going to work, going shopping, dropping our kids off at schools. We literally have to plan our lives around the traffic. I often have to shop online, or have my husband shop in Orange County because it is such a pain to go anywhere in this City. On the issue of schools: our schools are already crowded. There are no new schools planned. Where are all of these new families (of all the new developments) going to send their children? -One of the reasons we moved to Corona was because of the beautiful view of the mountains, and because it had a relatively good amount of open space (compared to Orange County). With all these new homes being built, I have seen our beautiful mountains continually get chopped into for more and more homes. If this project moves forward, the tops of the beautiful mountains that I see when I look out my front window will LETTER 10 1
2 3
4

2 razed and replaced with hundreds of homes. It will literally ruin an entire portion of the city's view of the Cleveland forest.

Please focus on fixing what we've already got before adding new homes. Re-vamp the downtown. Give us places to work, and shop, and gather as a community. Quality, not quantity.

If the city does choose to proceed with this project, the developer should be required to incorporate a walking/hiking trail along the perimeter. One hiking trail (that is very difficult to access, because of the poor planning when they built homes literally up to the edge of the trail, providing no parking) is simply not enough in a city this large, that borders a national forest. If we cannot build a hiking trail in the forest, then the developer should include that in their plans.

I realize that cities have to grow. But there has to be good and proper planning, and there has to be adequate infrastructure in place. Corona hasn't done the best job with either of those things. Let's start now.

In closing, please consider putting a stop to the Skyline Heights project.

Thank you for your time, and consideration of the citizen's of Corona's opinions.

Respectfully,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
714.323.6543
4 (cont.) 5
6 7

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 10
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 10
Response to Comment 10-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 10-2 through 10-7 below.

The commenter’s request to be added to the notification list is noted, and notices will be provided as appropriate. Also, the expressed opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. As these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 10-2. With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to whether the Foothill Parkway Extension Project and the SR 91 improvements currently underway would provide congestion relief in the City, the Foothill Parkway Extension Project was completed in late 2016 and the SR 91 improvements are anticipated to be completed in 2017. Consistent with CEQA requirements, and in order to provide a comprehensive traffic analysis, multiple timeframe scenarios are evaluated in the traffic analysis as indicated on page 4.M-14 of the Draft EIR, including existing (baseline), 2020, and 2035 conditions, both with and without the project, along with several recommended improvement scenarios. As indicated on pages 4.M-16 through 4.M-18, because the Foothill Parkway and SR 91 improvements will not come on-line until 2017, the existing scenarios were evaluated assuming that these improvements are not in place, while the 2020 and 2035 scenarios were evaluated assuming that these improvements are in place. Therefore, the traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts of the project both without and with the Foothill Parkway and SR 91 improvements, and as indicated on page 4.M-44, in both instances the project would result in less than significant operational traffic impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures.

With regard to the assumptions in the traffic analysis about cumulative development in the City and greater region, as indicated on page 4.M-20 of the Draft EIR, the future 2020 and 2035 analysis timeframe scenarios both include traffic generated by other development in the area. As further indicated, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted using the City’s travel demand model for the City of Corona Circulation Element Update. The 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic volume forecasts were obtained through utilization of the City’s model, which is based on data from the Revised Travel Demand Model of the City of Corona’s General Plan, with selected regional projects from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) added. The 2020 traffic volume forecasts were obtained by interpolating between the Existing and 2035 traffic volumes, as well as by reducing the 2035 traffic volumes by one percent per year for 15 years. Because both the City of Corona Circulation Element Update travel City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-101

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
demand model and the selected regional projects from the RTP include traffic assumptions for the development currently and to occur in the City and greater region by 2020 and 2035, and because the with project analysis adds project traffic to these projected 2020 and 2035 traffic volumes, the traffic analysis incorporates the traffic associated with cumulative development.

Response to Comment 10-3. Please see Response to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) regarding project traffic and schools impacts, and Response to Comments 9- 10 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Ronald R Papp) regarding project infrastructure impacts.

Response to Comment 10-4. Please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” and 1-9 under “Skyline Silhouette” (both in Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 10-5. The comments regarding fixing what we’ve already got before adding new homes, re-vamping downtown, giving us places to work shop and gather as a community, and quality, not quantity are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 10-6. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 10-7. The comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 10-1 through 10-6.

With regard to the portion of the comment on the infrastructure impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-10 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Elaine Hicks).

With regard to the portion of the comment requesting that the City put a stop to the project, this portion of the comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this portion of the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-102

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
INSERT LETTER 11 (page 1 of 6)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-103

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
INSERT LETTER 11 (page 2 of 6)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-104

LETTER 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 11
Dwight Woodward
Response to Letter 11
Response to Comment 11-1. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District). As indicated therein: (1) the project would preserve the only designated publically accessible trail (e.g., Skyline Trail) within the annexation area; (2) the project (e.g., tentative tract map) is proposed on private and not public land; (3) several undesignated trails traverse the project site and would be impacted by the project, but these trails occur on private property and are not dedicated for public access by a recorded easement; and (4) the project would result in less than significant impacts to publicly dedicated trails. For all these reasons, a public path leading from one of the Overlooks shown in Figure 2-10 to the local trail system is not warranted. Still, as indicated in Response to Comment 5-1, the applicant has agreed to work with the community to address ongoing access to and use of on-site trails in order to respond to public concerns. Therefore, there may eventually be some publically assessable trail connection between the project site and the local trail system in addition to Skyline Trail.

Response to Comment 11-2. The Draft EIR evaluated biological resources impacts, including impacts to jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine areas of the project site, in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in the Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix D. As indicated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544, in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the canyon highlighted in the comment is the canyon at the foot of Meadowcrest Circle, just north of the northern terminus of West Foothill Parkway (prior to construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, which was recently completed in late 2016). As indicated in Figure 2-7, the majority of this canyon is within the proposed annexation area and the “Not A Part” area, but outside the project site (TTM 36544), and would not be disturbed.

Although it is not clear to what the “highlighted canyon” refers, Figure 4.C-1 depicts only a single prominent drainage, and that is Mabey Canyon. Mabey Canyon crosses the northern third of the site. The project has been designed to avoid almost all impacts to this drainage because of its size, habitat value and its use for wildlife movement, however, the project design does encroach on the northern edge of Mabey Canyon Wash and impact approximately 0.08 acres of the drainage.

Mitigation for jurisdictional drainage impacts will be in the form of offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of the streambed. The location of mitigation is negotiated with the lead and regulatory agencies, which may or may not include onsite mitigation. For example, oak trees will be mitigated primarily onsite, while other biological resources could be mitigated on or offsite as a result of agency requirements and site conditions. Mitigation areas must have specific characteristics that will support the natural habitat and its long-term survival without assistance.

Response to Comment 11-3. The Draft EIR evaluated biological resources impacts, including impacts to blue line streams, in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in the Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix D, while the RDEIR City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-109

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
addressed these resources in Section 4.C, with supporting analysis and documentation provided in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment included as Appendix A. As indicated on RDEIR page 4.C-31 and in Figure 4.C-7, Jurisdictional Features Map, the project site supports 18.35 acres of state jurisdictional streambed, of which 2.16 acres is federal non-wetland jurisdictional area (e.g., “waters of the U.S.”).. As indicated on RDEIR pages 4.C-56 through 4.C-59, the project would impact 5.38 acres of this state jurisdictional streambed, of which 1.57 acres (19,801 linear feet) is federal jurisdictional drainages as shown in Figure 4.C-10, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features, in Section 4.C of the RDEIR. As further indicated therein, with implementation of RDEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-MM9 and BIO-MM10, which outline regulatory requirements to obtain regulatory permits (e.g., CWA Section 404 permit, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement) project impacts to these jurisdictional features (including blue line streams) would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 11-4. The Draft EIR evaluated geology and soils impacts, including impacts from faulting, in Section 4.E, Geology and Soils, with supporting information provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation included in Appendix F. As indicated in Figure 4.E-2, the Tin Mine Fault and associated Alquist Priolo Fault Zone bisects the western portion of the project site in a northwest to southeast alignment. However, as indicated on page 4.E-6, the portion of the Tin Mine Fault that bisects the project site is assessed not to be active according to the Alquist Priolo definition based on a literature review, aerial photographic analyses, field mapping, logging of 13 excavator trenches up to 1,170 feet long and 17 excavator pits along the fault, and lack of displaced pre-Holocene deposits on top of the fault. Therefore, as indicated on page 4.E-18 of the Draft EIR, with adherence to the design and remedial grading recommendations set forth in Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23, the Tin Mine Fault and other faults on and within the vicinity of the project site would not pose significant fault rupture, seismic, or seismically-related hazards to the project.

Response to Comment 11-5. This comment expresses concern that the project design would cause significant visual and biological resources impacts, including impacts to project site drainages, and an alternative design should be proposed. The EIR acknowledges that the project will have a significant impact to visual and biological resources, for which mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts. The recommended mitigation measures for biological resources would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. However, impacts to visual resources (aesthetics) are found to remain significant even after mitigation and a statement of overriding considerations is required.

In addition, the lead agency has considered alternative designs that reduce project impacts in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The City of Corona has considered these alternatives in the project application decision.

Response to Comment 11-6. The Draft EIR evaluated impacts related to fire access in Section 4.L, Public Services, with supporting data provided in the public services correspondence and background information provided in Appendix J. As indicated on pages 4.L-13, as required by Mitigation Measure PS-1, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features including, but not limited to: roadways designed to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; minimum driveway and fire lane widths of 28 feet; minimum turning radii of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside; grades not to exceed 10 percent; and adequate on-site space to park CFD apparatus. Furthermore, as indicated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544, in Chapter 2, Project Description, West Foothill Parkway (a four-lane divided secondary arterial) would run City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-110

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
immediately along the eastern side of the project, with multiple access points (including secondary emergency access) to be provided from this parkway into the proposed development. Therefore, adequate fire access would be provided, and as indicated on pages 4.L-12 through 4.L-14, with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., CFC, CMC/Fire Code, CFD requirements, etc.), and with implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services (including fire access) would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 11-7. The comment that the project would increase the financial strain to the City’s Public Works Department by having to maintain the storm drain system is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, financial impacts are not an issue to be evaluated in an EIR, as CEQA is concerned with the physical impacts of the Project on the environment, unless the economic effects of the Project translate to a physical impact on the environment (i.e., visual blight, physical deterioration of buildings, etc.). In this case, substantial evidence in the record has been provided by the commenter demonstrating that the increased financial costs to the City associated with maintaining the project’s storm drain system, if any, would lead to physical blight.

Response to Comment 11-8. Please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 11-9. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 11-10. Please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-111

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: SKYLINE TRAIL
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Accounts Payable
Cc: Darrell Talbert
Subject: Re: SKYLINE TRAIL
Thank you for the email.

I am exploring other alternatives, but to avoid NO access to the trail, once Foothill is complete, this parking lot is necessary in the mean time.

The City does not own or control any property close by in the area, but again, I am looking at other ways to access the trail, closer.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Accounts Payable <ap@signage‐solutions.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>
Subject: SKYLINE TRAIL
I am writing to request that you NOT approve the parking area on Maguilar & Chase That is approximately 1 mile away from the Skyline Trailhead. Why can’t the city of Corona build a designated Parking area off Foothill before the mass amount of houses go up. This is a trail that my kids & I Have visited weekly for family hiking trips, now that they are teenagers they chose to spend There weekends hiking instead of getting in trouble in the community. Please reconsider This Parking Area and don’t make it impossible for Family’s to find a fun, free way to spend time together.

Best Regards,
DeAnna Murdock | Accounting Manager

SIGNAGESOLUTIONS
2231 S. Dupont Drive | Anaheim, CA | 92806
LETTER 12 1

2 O: 714. 491. 0299
F: 714-491-0439
E: [email protected]
W: signage-solutions.com

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 12
DeAnna Murdock
Signage Solutions
2231 S. Dupont Drive
Anaheim, CA 92806
[email protected]
Response to Letter 12
Response to Comment 12-1. With regard to project impacts on Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the request that the City not approve the planned Skyline Trail-related parking area on Chase Drive between Mangular and Skyline Drive, the request is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, the planned parking area is being proposed by the City of Corona in response to the Foothill Parkway Extension Project to replace parking previously allowed by the City within the Foothill Parkway right-of-way, and is a project different from Skyline Heights and a separate project under CEQA (e.g., is not part of the proposed Skyline Heights Project). Therefore, no further response is required.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-114

LETTER 13
1 2

2 (cont.)
3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 13
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
Response to Letter 13
Response to Comment 13-1 through 13-3. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-118

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:01 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Fyi.

From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: A Demeo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Randy Fox
Subject: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Good morning,
I was writing to express my dissent and opposition to encroaching Skyline Hiking Trails with 100+ additional homes. From someone who grew up in Corona and watched the various natural grounds destroyed from further capital gains from more homes, I am disappointed to hear the City of Corona is looking to further expand, which will adversely affect parts of Skyline Hiking Trails.

Corona already has a commuting issue with the vast amount of cars and traffic, and we do not need additional housing, let alone any housing that will take away the remaining natural charm of the city. I grew up hiking Skyline and it saddens me that the city is willing to forego the few outdoor opportunities residents of Corona have to explore the beautiful wilderness that surrounds this city for housing profits, especially when the gridlock traffic already indicates we do not have more infrastructure to even support further expansion without further inconveniencing Corona residents with more cars on the road. This is a prime example of capitalisticdriven policy taking away from our environment, and I could not stand to not reach out and voice my opposition to the proposal.

Sincerely,
Alexis Demeo
LETTER 14
1 2

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 14
Alexis Demeo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 14
Response to Comment 14-1. Please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 14-2. With regard to the comment that Corona already has a commuting issue and that we do not need additional housing, let alone any housing that will take away the remaining natural charm of the City, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9-3, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) regarding traffic, and Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) regarding aesthetics and visual character.

With regard to the comment expressing sadness that the City is willing to forego the few outdoor opportunities residents of Corona have to explore the surrounding wilderness, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-120

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:49 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Fyi
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Message sent to the full City Council
From: David Wright [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is David Wright and I am a home owner and resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located LETTER 15 1
2 3
4

2 generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline and surrounding trails hundreds of times in the past few years. I lead a hiking group that have AT LEAST two events every week, year round, exploring the Skyline trail system, including: Hagador, Tin Mine, Trudy, and Mabey canyons. Hiking here has literally changed my life on so many levels, and as a group leader I have seen the impact it has had on dozens of others as well. I have also seen usage of the trails increase steadily over the past couple of years and I would hate to see anything change that. A healthier and more active community benefits us all. I was very disappointed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the Skyline Heights project were notified. At the very least there should have been public notice somewhere along the trail so the people enjoying one of the greatest benefits of living in Corona could have a voice! Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln
Corona, CA 92882
4 (cont.)
5 6
7 8

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 15
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 15
Response to Comment 15-1. With regard to the comment that Skyline Hiking Trail should be protected, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the comment requesting that the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing be rejected, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-2. The comment requesting that the application for the annexation be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-3. The comment requesting that the application for the General Plan Amendment be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-4. The comment requesting that the application for the pre-zone be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-5. The comment requesting that the application for the subdivision be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-6. With regard to project impacts to the Skyline Hiking Trail and trail access, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District), and Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

With regard to encroachment of development and impacts to open space, please see Response to Comments 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 4, County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Department).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionCity of Corona Skyline Heights Project ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-123

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 15-7. The comments describing the commenter’s experience with the Skyline trail system is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comment that the commenter would hate to see anything that changes the current trend towards increasing trail use, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the impact on Skyline Trail associated with the increased use of the trail under the project, the Draft EIR evaluated impacts on trails in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning. As indicated on page 4.I-15, while future project residents would likely utilize the existing trail facilities in the area, including the adjacent Skyline Trail, the increase in trail use associated with the project is expected to be nominal relative to existing trail usage, and thus the project would not be expected to result in measurable degradation of the trail.

With regard to the disappointment expressed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the project were notified, and that there should have been public notice along the trail so that people enjoying the trail could comment on the project, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Public noticing and consultations for the project has been and will continue to be conducted in accordance with CEQA and City of Corona requirements. This has included, but has not necessarily been limited to, the following:
• Notice of Preparation (NOP): Circulation of an NOP on February 4, 2013 announcing that an EIR was being prepared for the project, and soliciting comments from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and the public, on the required scope and content of the Draft EIR. The public review and comment period of 30 days required by CEQA was provided and in fact, this comment period was extended by five (5) days to provide additional time for public review and comment. • Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting was held on March 4, 2014 to solicit comments from the public on the required scope and content of the Draft EIR. This public scoping meeting was not required by CEQA, but requested by the City to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the preparation of the Draft EIR.
• Notice of Availability (NOA): The NOA for the Draft EIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse on December 4, 2015 soliciting comments from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and the public, on the Draft EIR, while the NOA for the RDEIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse on November 16, 2016. The public review period of 45 days required by CEQA was provided for both the Draft EIR and RDEIR.
• Planning and Housing Commission Hearings: The availability of the Draft EIR was made available to the general public for another 45 days starting on March 16, 2016 through May 2, 2016, at the same time the project was being advertised for public hearing at the Planning and Housing Commission on April 11, 2016. A second Planning and Housing Commission public hearing for the Draft EIR was City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-124

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
done on May 9, 2016, with the City accepting additional comments on the Draft EIR until that day.

The hearing on the Draft EIR was not required by CEQA, but was done by the City in order to give the public the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR in excess of CEQA requirements.

The notice for the NOP/public scoping meeting, NOA for both the Draft EIR and RDEIR, and the Planning and Housing Commission hearings, were: (1) mailed to responsible and trustee agencies, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the annexation area, and organizations and members of the public who requested the notices/announcement; (2) published in the Sentinel Weekly News newspaper. A public hearing notice sign was also posted on Foothill Parkway in proximity to the project site.

Furthermore, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City shall provide all public agencies who submitted comments on the Draft EIR with proposed written responses to those comments at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. Although not required by CEQA, the City will also post the Final EIR on the City’s website during this 10 day review period so that members of the public may review the Final EIR before certification. Although not required by CEQA, the public will also be afforded the opportunity to comment on the project and Final EIR during the City Council hearing on the project.

Based on the above, ample opportunity has been provided to the public to comment on the project and the associated Draft EIR, including to members of the public that did not receive the notice/announcement mailings within 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, expansion of the noticing regime is not required.

Response to Comment 15-8. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-7.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-125

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Dalia Terriquez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Dalia Terriquez and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by LETTER 16
1 2
3 4
5 6

2 thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked the Skyline trail for a nature walk with my children. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Dalia Terriquez
6 (cont.)
7 8

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 16
Dalia Terriquez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 16
Responses to Comments 16-1 through 16-6. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 16-7. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 16-8. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 16-1 through 16-7.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-128

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:53 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Cc: Nelson Nelson
Subject: FW: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Fyi on the response given by one of our councilmembers.

From: jeff nelson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:22 AM
To: Eugene Montanez
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: RE: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Thanks Eugene, and you are correct, I don't know all of the legalities of the development. I think many of us in this community are usually worried that more development equates to negative connotations, additional traffic etc. So mine is indeed a knee jerk reaction. I just love those hills. I'd hate to lose what we have, and or be pushed farther out. And I understand how current and future residents wouldn't want strangers walking through their back yards. So I imagine some restrictions will follow. And we'll lose that unique slice of life.

As for my family, I think my pop would have loved to have donated the grove property to become a citrus park. March and April are still wonderful up there with everything blooming. But inevitably, change does come.

Thank you again for the reply. I'll pass this on. And hopefully I'll be more involved as we move ahead.

Take care,
Jeff Nelson
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:50:17 +0000
Thanks for the email.

There are plenty of rumors out there, but that property is and has been private property, never a part of the forest. As your family owns property set for development in Corona, would you argue ALL property not be developed?
LETTER 17
1 2 Page 2782 of 3613
2 This development does not affect the trail in any way, and the existing development was to have been a gated community, and not one person came t the planning commission or council meetings years ago to stop that.

The residents could still pursue that, which would make using the trail much harder.

We are working on providing more parking for the trail, but some of the residents are opposed to that as well.

I agree the trail is great, but we need to have a complete plan in place, which is what we are attempting to accomplish.

Thanks again
Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: jeff nelson <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:11 PM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Jeff Nelson and I am a life long resident of Corona (with stays in NYC and Ann Arbor, MI). I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.
3 2
(cont.) 4
5 6
7

3 As a lifelong resident of Corona, I know most of you personally. And I do find that one of the amazing aspects of this city is that we have access to these wonderful trails. Already we've seen the Skyline trailhead backed up and paved. (And I think eventually those residents will try and further limit our access and hours.) I understand that these trails may not bring in revenue, but they do promote a quality of life that is difficult to find anywhere else. The trails in question offer wonderful variety of distance and difficulty. Opposed to the Tin Mine and Hagador Canyons, these trails can be looped, instead of doing a simple up and back. If I'm not playing basketball with the mayor on Sunday mornings, we are usually hiking those trails. And mostly, aside from the physical benefits, I just don't have the words to describe the wonderful variety of emotions I feel when I'm out there. There's accomplishment, there's nature and there is still a sense of freedom. Personally, those trails - the little things in life - are a wonderful part of living here in Corona. I hope you agree.

Thank you,
Jeff Nelson
8

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 17
Jeff Nelson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 17
Response to Comment 17-1. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 17-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 17-3 through 17-8 from Jeff Nelson. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is private property but has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to portion of the City’s response regarding impacts on Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the response regarding parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 17-3 through 17-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 17-8. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-132

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Mike Byer ([email protected]); David Crook Subject: FW: Skyline Drive Development
Fyi
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:04 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Drive Development
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Kyle Ericson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 7:23 AM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: Skyline Drive Development
Dear Ms. Spiegel,

Just this weekend I became aware of the potential development of another 292 homes along Skyline Drive Trail. I am writing to you and the other board members at this time to voice my opposition to this proposal. I currently live off of Lincoln and Foothill and utilize Skyline Drive Trail at least 5 times a week for either running or mountain biking and I would hate to see that access denied or curtailed (which I’m sure would eventually happen once these homes are built).

Additionally, with the on-going expansion of Foothill Blvd. to Green River set to complete soon and finally alleviate some traffic and congestion in the area, this proposed development would render that a moot point almost immediately.

Also, unless the developer has discovered some new aquifer or well to derive water from, this development is only going to put a further strain on our already limited water resources. Personally, I have already removed all my grass and cut back severely on my water usage (I never exceed my Tier 1 allotment), but I don’t want to see that allotment cut back further or my rates increased in order to divert water to this new development.

In conclusion, I understand that the City is always in need of further revenues to provide services to its residents (my Father worked for the City back in the 60’s) and the potential development fees and future property taxes are intoxicating, but I strongly encourage you to think of the current residents of this area and the fact that once another part of the Cleveland National Forest is destroyed and developed, you can never get it back. Thank you for your time.

Kyle EricSon
3244 Mountain Pass Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
LETTER 18 1
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 18
Kyle Ericson
3244 Mountain Pass Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 18
Response to Comment 18-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

With regard to trail impacts/access, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 18-2. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

As further clarification, the City's Water Master Plan has always included the Skyline property since the property is within the City's Sphere of Influence (per Figure 3.3 of 2005 Water Master Plan) and plans for water services to the potential development on the property.

In regards to water usage, the City has invested in constructing reclaimed water systems throughout the City.

Most of the water that is being used for common areas and public landscape in new single family home development is recycled. The reclaimed water serves the public landscaping associated with parks, schools, and most Landscape Maintenance District lots throughout the City. The large slopes that will be created by the development will be irrigated with reclaimed water and efficient irrigation. Furthermore, the development is subject to the City’s new landscape ordinance which minimizes grass and uses very little water. Fifteen years ago all the landscaping was done with potable water. With the installation of a Reclaimed Water System within the City, the water per capita usage has decreased by about 33%. In addition, the new homes will have landscaping that is very efficient, and the internal fixtures will be high efficiency shower heads and faucets which will help minimize the water usage.

Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.N, pages 4.N-30 through 4.N-42, and the City of Corona 2010 Urban Water Management Plan dated April 2012, for details on City water source and supply strategy.

Response to Comment 18-3. The comment encouraging the City to think of the current residents, and stating that once part of the CNF is destroyed and developed, you can never get it back, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-134

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:49 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking T
Message sent to the full City Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rudy J Realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking T Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Rudy Realo and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands LETTER 19
2 3
4 5
6 1

2 of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline a number of times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike

2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Rudy J Realo
6 (cont.) 7
8

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 19
Rudy Realo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 19
Response to Comments 19-1 through 19-8. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-137

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:40 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Same letter.  Different person.

From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council
From: Georganna H [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:14 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail

Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Georganna Hemingway and I am a resident of Riverside, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

LETTER 20
3 2
1

2 REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Georganna Hemingway
6 5
4 7
8

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 20
Georganna Hemingway
[email protected]
Response to Letter 20
Response to Comment 20-1 through 20-8. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-140

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 7:21 AM
To: Mike Byer ([email protected]); David Crook Subject: FW: SKYLINE First Name Last Name
Fyi.

From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:46 PM
To: Justin Henderson
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: SKYLINE First Name Last Name
Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
My name is [FIRSTNAME] [LASTNAME] and I am a resident of [CITY OF RESIDENCE], California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

LETTER 21
1 2

2 REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have [ADD PERSONAL ANECDOTE HERE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SKYLINE] hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Justin Henderson
2 (cont.)
3 4

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 21
Justin Henderson
Response to Letter 21
Response to Comment 21-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 21-2 through 21-4 from Justin Henderson. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, this is correct. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 21-2 through 21-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-143

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:42 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full city council.

From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Courtney Kasey and I am a resident of Corona. I am writing as a outraged community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of cyclists and hikers, like myself, each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities. In addition, our schools host 100 mile club events there, as well as the valuable local history to preserve.

I have spent many 4th of July’s on the top of the hill to watch an array of firework displays, I take my children hiking to both Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon on a regular basis. I have been hiking these trails since I was in high school and CHS. I was so grateful to see the city recognize the value of trails to our city, with the water fountain and dog station at the trailhead. I was appalled when I recently learned of the plans to put more houses, puts an unnecessary burden on those who use these trails. We have already seen the trail head moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away! This will greatly impede our access to the Skyline trail. We NEED to conserve access to our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected.

LETTER 22
1 2

2 Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. I already feel that the city does so little to bring jobs that wouldn’t require me to drive to OC every day. Please don’t make it so bad, that now I can’t even hike in my own town either! I implore you to reject the applications and support what should be our community goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Courtney Kasey
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 22
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 22
Response to Comments 22-1. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 22-2. With regard to project impacts on trail access, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 22-3. Please see Response to Comments 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the City does so little to bring jobs to the area, this portion of the comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-146

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:00 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Justin Henderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 11:32 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is [FIRSTNAME] [LASTNAME] and I am a resident of [CITY OF RESIDENCE], California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the LETTER 23
1

2 encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have [ADD PERSONAL ANECDOTE HERE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SKYLINE] hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Justin Henderson
1 (cont.)
2 3

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 23
Justin Henderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 23
Response to Comments 23-1 through 23-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-149

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Branton Lachman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:45 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Branton Lachman and I am a resident of Corona, California since 1956. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

LETTER 24
1

2 I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline two to three times a week individually and as as part of a hiking group that meets to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. I have also been hiking these trails since I was a 10 year-old cub scout. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

I have also mountain biked both the fire road and the trails. During all these activities I have observed numerous couples, families, children, running teams, biking teams, etc. enjoy the open space and natural environment provided by Skyline Hiking Trail. Not every open space needs to be developed! We can strive instead for providing world class amenities even in Corona.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Past City Councils (particularly in the 60s through 90s) have not provided for quality of life in Corona, instead settling for low mitigation fees, warehouse sales taxes, etc. I am happy that our recent and current Councils have made significant efforts to improve quality of life in Corona such that we can become more than a commuter/bedroom community.

On behalf of the many residents who enjoy this unique natural resource available to Corona, I implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Branton Lachman
1 (cont.)
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 24
Branton Lachman
[email protected]
Response to Letter 24
Response to Comments 24-1 through 24-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-152

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:29 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full city council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephanie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Stephanie Lomani and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands LETTER 25
1

2 of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have and still hike Skyline 100+ times with my family friends and have met new group and have been hiking with them since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Stephanie Lomani
Sent from my iPhone
1 (cont.)
2 3

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 25
Stephanie Lomani
[email protected]
Response to Letter 25
Response to Comments 25-1 through 25-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-155

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Branton Lachman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 2:05 PM
To: Eugene Montanez
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Hi Eugene.

Thanks for responding. Here are my (our) concerns:

Yes, Skyline Drive will still be accessible, but that is not the same as the Skyline trail system. The existing trails are all over the canyons planned for development and will be eliminated by the development.

Even if only considering the fire road and not the single track trails, the upcoming changes for parking will pose problems for many if the parking moves another 1/4 mile away from the current Foothill trail head (which is already 0.5 mile from the fire road) all the way down to Chase Drive. And that move, of course, assumes the lot does not get blocked by local residents who do not want a parking lot in that area. And even if built in the current proposed location this will mean residents will have to walk almost a full mile on paved road with houses all around just to get to the fire road.

There must be a better way that can preserve existing trails or at least locate the parking lot closer to the actual fire road. Perhaps the city could work with the county on this and even consider putting the new lot at the county gates leading into Tin Mine Canyon.

Thanks again for listening and responding and I hope you will continue to search for a more workable solution.

Take care,
Branton
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:19 AM, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually LETTER 26
1 2

2 investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 (not as long as you:) and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to
the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Branton Lachman <[email protected]>
Reply‐To: Branton Lachman <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Branton Lachman and I am a resident of Corona, California since 1956. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 2 (cont.)
3

3 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline two to three times a week individually and as as part of a hiking group that meets to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. I have also been hiking these trails since I was a 10 year-old cub scout. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

I have also mountain biked both the fire road and the trails. During all these activities I have observed numerous couples, families, children, running teams, biking teams, etc. enjoy the open space and natural environment provided by Skyline Hiking Trail. Not every open space needs to be developed! We can strive instead for providing world class amenities even in Corona.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Past City Councils (particularly in the 60s through 90s) have not provided for quality of life in Corona, instead settling for low mitigation fees, warehouse sales taxes, etc. I am happy that our recent and current Councils have made significant efforts to improve quality of life in Corona such that we can become more than a commuter/bedroom community.

On behalf of the many residents who enjoy this unique natural resource available to Corona, I implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Branton Lachman
3 (cont.)
4 5

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 26
Branton Lachman
[email protected]
Response to Letter 26
Response to Comment 26-1. With regard to the “Skyline trail system”, please see Response to Comment 5- 1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 26-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 26-3 through 26-5 from Branton Lachman. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect.

The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 26-3 through 26-5. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-159

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 5:08 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Patricia Realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 5:01 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor Scott:

Thank you for the reply. I realize that the trail will not be closed. But I am concerned about barriers to access (developed parking, distance to the trail, access to Mabey, Trudy, Wardlow canyons which are part of the Skyline trails system). Once Orchard Glen construction was finished near the old Skyline trailhead, hikers were shut out of that neighborhood and had to walk an additional 1/2 mile to the trailhead. Adding an additional 1/2 mile to Chase is creating a barrier to access. These are separate but related issues.

I would appreciate if you can share where I can find information on the parking proposal that you describe. Are there issues with creating developed parking near the wash basin? What happens if the residents in the Chase parking area oppose the parking proposal?
Also, it appears that the City would annex a portion of the Skyline trail fire road (as shown in the graphic at the bottom of the public hearing notice). What are the plans for that fire road once annexed? Can the City create developed parking along the fire road?
I also have enjoyed seeing some of the developments in Corona but not as they encroach on the foothills. In addition to access and parking near the forest, I have concerns that the Skyline Heights development, as well as the Arantine Hills development, will add to the existing congestion on surface streets, traffic nightmares on the 91 and 15 freeways, and the burden on our water supply. Changing the private land from Rural Residential to Low Density is under consideration and I hope you will support the rejection of this application.

Thank you for addressing my concerns above.

Best, Patricia
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Trixie,
LETTER 27
1 2
3 4
5

2 I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights.

I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest.
http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails-homepage/
http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp-content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
DiscoverCorona.com
InnerCircleCorona.com

5 (cont.)
6 7

3 Right-click here to download pictures. To help pro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

From: trixie anderson [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Patricia Anderson and I am a resident of Corona, California and have lived here since 2002. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. 8

4 I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest.

There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1/2 to 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Thank you,
Patricia Anderson
8 (cont.)
9 10 Page 2816 of 3613

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 27
Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 27
Response to Comment 27-1. With regard to impacts/access to the “Skyline trail system”, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 27-2. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 27-3. The project would result in the annexation of a portion of the existing Skyline Trail, referred to be the commenter as the “Skyline trail fire road”, but implementation of the proposed residential development would not result in any physical changes to the fire road or potential emergency vehicle access thereto. The Skyline Trail would continue to operate as a public hiking trail and, when necessary, potentially a fire access road once the proposed project is implemented. The provision of public trail parking along the Skyline Trail in the vicinity of the project site is not associated with the project and is not germane to the analyses presented in the Draft EIR. Thus, no further response in this regard is warranted.

Response to Comment 27-4. With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin). As clarification, as indicated on page 4.M-34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the project would not be developed until the Foothill Parkway Extension Project has been completed. As of late 2016, the Foothill Parkway Extension has been completed and is operational.

With regard to water supply, please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson).

Responses to Comments 27-5 and 27-7. These comments are responses from the City of Corona to Comments 27-8 through 27-10 from Patricia (Realo) Anderson. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the UrbanRural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 27-8 through 27-10. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-164

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-165

1 David Crook
From: David Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 4:29 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your reply. You are the first to reply, although I have heard from the developer and plan to meet with him on Friday.

I have a couple of pertinent points I would like to share, but have to be brief or I will miss my hike tonight :) 1st - Skyline Drive is just the fire road, but it is being referenced as though it represents the entirety of the trail system in that area. There are dozens of great hiking and biking trails in the canyons surrounding Skyline Drive, and the Skyline Heights project will eliminate most/all of them in the Trudy, Mabey, and (part of) Wardlow canyons.
2nd - I do understand that private owners generally have the right to do what they wish with their property, and truth be told I am typically more inclined to side with a property-owners rights over excessive regulation or government control. But as you said, provided legal requirements are adhered to - which I think is a debatable point in this matter.

I run a hiking group that actually hikes in the Skyline area every Tue & Thu night at 6 pm and would welcome you or anyone else to come out and see the areas that will be directly impacted by this development. It is a beautiful area and has been hiked/biked by the public for decades. Most people I have spoken to did not even know it was private land, and absolutely no one had any idea it was about to be developed.

Anyhow, I need to get on the road to Corona. If you want more details or would like to take the conversation deeper, please feel free to let me know.

Thank you again for reaching out,
David
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello David,
I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights.

LETTER 28
1 2
3 4

2 I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest.
http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails-homepage/
http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp-content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
DiscoverCorona.com
InnerCircleCorona.com
Right-click here to download pictures. To help pro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

5 6

3 From: David Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is David Wright and I am a home owner and resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline and surrounding trails hundreds of times in the past few years. I lead a hiking group that have AT LEAST two events every week, year round, exploring the Skyline trail system, including: Hagador, Tin Mine, Trudy, and Mabey canyons. Hiking here has literally changed my life on so many levels, and as a group leader I have seen the impact it has had on dozens of others as well. I have also seen usage of the trails increase steadily over the past couple of years 7 8

4 and I would hate to see anything change that. A healthier and more active community benefits us all. I was very disappointed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the Skyline Heights project were notified. At the very least there should have been public notice somewhere along the trail so the people enjoying one of the greatest benefits of living in Corona could have a voice! Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln
Corona, CA 92882
8 (cont.)
9

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 28
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 28
Response to Comment 28-1. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 28-2. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service). Also, the project would comply with all CEQA, City of Corona, Riverside County, CNF, and other applicable legal requirements.

Response to Comment 28-3. The comment concerning the commenter’s hiking group, and that the area has been hiked/biked by the public for decades, are noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comments that people did not know that the project site was private land or was about to be developed, please see Response to Comment 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Responses to Comments 28-4 through 28-6. These comments are responses from the City of Corona to Comments 28-7 through 28-9 from David Wright. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 28-7 through 28-9. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-170

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:37 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail I am not familiar with that trail and obviously if it is indeed on private property there are many other issues such as liability.

But we also have another access area, close to Paseo Grande that will become available, once Foothill Parkway is completed.

That would actually allow LEGAL access and more trails.

Thanks again
Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:15 PM
To: Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>
Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>, Jason Scott <[email protected]> Subject: RE: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for your quick response, and while the specific trails of Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon might not be affected, others would. Looking at the proposed plans online, a trail referred to by local mountain bikers as, Block Trail, would be demolished. This trail was built (technically on the private property in question) over 20 years ago, but has been a well maintained biking trail ever since. In addition, the new housing would absolutely impact parking and traffic, not just at the Skyline trailhead, but within the city and getting in/out of the city as so many of us have to do 5 days a week.

See you on the 11th.

Sincerely,
Courtney Kasey
From: Eugene Montanez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
LETTER 29
1 2

2 Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>; Jason Scott <[email protected]> Subject: Re: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail

Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Courtney Kasey and I am a resident of Corona. I am writing as a outraged community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the 3 4

3 encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of cyclists and hikers, like myself, each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities. In addition, our schools host 100 mile club events there, as well as the valuable local history to preserve.

I have spent many 4th of July’s on the top of the hill to watch an array of firework displays, I take my children hiking to both Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon on a regular basis. I have been hiking these trails since I was in high school and CHS. I was so grateful to see the city recognize the value of trails to our city, with the water fountain and dog station at the trailhead. I was appalled when I recently learned of the plans to put more houses, puts an unnecessary burden on those who use these trails. We have already seen the trail head moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away! This will greatly impede our access to the Skyline trail. We NEED to conserve access to our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. I already feel that the city does so little to bring jobs that wouldn’t require me to drive to OC every day. Please don’t make it so bad, that now I can’t even hike in my own town either! I implore you to reject the applications and support what should be our community goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Courtney Kasey

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ 4 (cont.)
5 6

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 29
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 29
Response to Comment 29-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comment 29-2 from Courtney Kasey; please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and OpenSpace District).

Response to Comment 29-2. With regard to the impacts of the proposed project on trails, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 29-3. These comments are a responses from the City of Corona to Comments 29-4 through 29-6 from Courtney Kasey. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

With regard to the City’s response stating that the project site has never been a part of the forest, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 29-4 through 29-6. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-174

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:12 AM
To: Megan Gifford
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Megan Gifford <m‐[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:10 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail LETTER 30
1

2 Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Khoa Vu and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have, enjoyably and with momentum, hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family.

We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling 2 3
4

3 groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Khoa Vu
4 (cont.)

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 30
Khoa Vu
Response to Letter 30
Response to Comment 30-1. These comments are a responses from the City of Corona to Comments 30-2 through 30-4 from Khoa Vu. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District). With regard to the City’s response stating that the project site has never been a part of the forest, please see Response to Comment 1- 3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 30-2 through 30-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-178

1 David Crook
From: Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: RE: Skyline/Hagador Construction Issue
Good morning Ms. Parker,
Thank for including me in your email to City Council and the many pictures and maps of Hagador Trail.  These do convey how beautiful the canyon is and why it is a local treasure that must be preserved.  I do know that the Cleveland National Forest rangers are very proud of Hagador Canyon and the trail system through the forest property.  You are very welcome and encouraged to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday night where the Skyline Heights development will be discussed.  However, I would like to clarify that this new development does not affect access to Hagador Canyon, Skyline Trail, Skyline Drive or the Cleveland National Forest in any way.  We will provide exhibits that will show where the future development is located in relation to these trails so everyone can see there is no impact on the existing trails.  But the focus of the meeting will be on the Skyline Heights development rather than the trails to Cleveland National Forest.

As there is great interest in the trails and providing adequate access to Cleveland National Forest, the City will conduct a Study Session in the near future to discuss this issue at length including various suggestions and options being considered.  There are pros and cons to nearly every option that has been suggested so we need to thoroughly research every alternative to determine the best options for the community.  The forum of the Study Session will allow us to discuss everything with input from the community and direction from the City Council.  We will announce the date and time of the Study Session when this issue is on the agenda well in advance to ensure everyone interested has the opportunity to participate in person or by sending in their suggestions, comments or concerns prior to the meeting.

You may always contact me directly if you have questions regarding the Skyline Heights development or other issues of concern regarding the trails.

Best regards,
Nelson D. Nelson, P.E.

Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Corona
(951) 817‐5765
From: Christy Parker, MSOL [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:53 PM
To: Karen Spiegel; Dick Haley; Eugene Montanez; Jason Scott; Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; Randy Fox
Subject: Skyline/Hagador Construction Issue
Hi Everyone,
Regarding the meeting happening on Monday about construction on private property near Skyline, I wanted to share some information that many of you may not be aware of. First, most of you are probably not aware that the area is actually called Hagador Canyon and that there is a trail across the field where construction it appears would take place. The trail is found by hopping over the Skyline drive railing instead of turning to the right up toward the tin mine and skyline trails.

LETTER 31
1 2
3

2 I am adding maps and pictures to help you see the issue. This particular trail is extremely beautiful with a stream that runs along it and it actually has a large sign in front of it put there by the forestry service. It says "Hagador Canyon Watershed Trail". It is more beautiful than the other hikes and is tree covered to provide shade. I take many groups and family there several times every week.

The issue I would like cleared up before anyone makes maps of houses and construction, is to take a look at the trail that runs along the side of the hills to the Hagador Canyon Trail. I and many others would like that accessible, and would be quite miserable if it weren't. It is our escape within the city and brings us much mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health and peace of mind. (Please see maps & pictures attached or posted below) I will be sending pictures of the trail and animal life in a 2nd email.

Sincerely,
Christy Parker, MSOL
Owner
Emotional Ethics
[email protected]
951-206-8824
www.emotionalethics.com
4 5

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 31
Christy Parker
Emotional Ethics
[email protected]
[email protected]
Response to Letter 31
Responses to Comments 31-1 and 31-2. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 31-3 through 31-5 from Christy Parker. With regard to the impacts of the project on trails within the annexation area, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 31-3 through 31-5. The information provided regarding Hagador Canyon, the Hagador Canyon Watershed, and what the commenter states is a designated trail named Hagador Canyon Watershed Trail, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-181

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:31 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Hiking Trail area development encroachment Message sent to mayor
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:51 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Skyline Hiking Trail area development encroachment I do not live in Corona, but it’s neighbor Norco. But I see there is a proposal for more development of almost 300 new houses in the hills.

Realistically I know stopping “progress” is a futile exercise , but there should be no reason that as development grows ALSO should a desire and effort to save, keep, and maintain open areas for recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. . As we all know once these natural open areas are gone, they are never coming back.

So I can not attend the City Council meeting, but I hope you will keep this opinion, and as I’m sure many others of like mind’s opinion in mind while contemplating your decision .

K.Zimmermann

LETTER 32
1

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 32
K. Zimmerman
Response to Letter 32
Response to Comment 32-1. The comment expressing awareness of the proposed project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the open space impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the biological resources impacts of the project, the Draft EIR evaluated impacts on biological resources in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation. An updated analysis regarding biological resources was also subsequently provided in Section 4.C of the RDEIR, with updated Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix A of the RDEIR. As indicated on Draft EIR page 4.C-50 and RDEIR page 4.C-76, project impacts on biological resources would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulations and implementation of the proposed project design features and mitigation measures.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-183

1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Cc: David Crook
Subject: FW: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
Joanne, let me know if this needs to be folded into any report that I’m doing or just collected for the final responses with the EIR.

From: Carol Lazar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:26 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Fwd: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Lazar <[email protected]>
Date: April 6, 2016 at 4:22:53 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
I just received the notice and will be unable to attend; however, would like my comments to be recorded by your Commission. I believe there should be a moratorium on development in Corona. The residents of Corona and the surrounding areas are going through hell with the traffic improvements that are now underway. These improvements will be negated when the new development is complete and we will be back to square one. The City needs to be in front of development with transportation improvements. I would hate for us to have to go through this nightmare again in a few years.

Carol a. Lazar
1763 Gleason
Corona, 92882
Sent from my iPad
LETTER 33
1

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 33
Carol Lazar
1763 Gleason
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 33
Response to Comment 33-1. The comments requesting that commenter’s comments be recorded by the Planning Commission, that a moratorium should be placed on development in the City, and that the residents of the City and the surrounding area “going through hell” with the traffic improvements now underway, are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-185

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Cleveland Natl. Forest foothill areas. NO HOUSING!!! FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: Protect Cleveland Natl. Forest foothill areas. NO HOUSING!!! Don't you DARE destroy the scenic trail areas near the Cleveland National Forest by the Skyline Trail and Foothill areas for more housing! Enough is enough and you are purposely destroying highly prized green spaces and recreational spaces that your citizens (who vote!) depend on for solace and happiness. MANY of us are not happy now that the word is out and we WILL PROTECT our beloved lands from your greed and profit‐seeking mentality. Our voices will be heard all over the region and we are ready to employ our marketing and communications team to help with our counter to this atrocity. Don't put your legacy on the line... we WILL BE HEARD. LOUDLY.

Regards,
One of 10,000 ORANGE COUNTY hikers who love our trails in Corona and plan on continuing enjoying them! LETTER 34
1

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 34
[email protected]
Response to Letter 34
Response to Comment 34-1. The request that the City not dare destroy the scenic trail areas near the CNF and Skyline Trail is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard project impacts on open space, aesthetics, and recreational spaces (e.g., trails), please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), 1-4 under “”Scenic Integrity (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and 5-1 (Riverside County Regional Parks and Open-Space District), respectively.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-187

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:54 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Kate Panepinto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Kate Panepinto and I am a resident of Riverside, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
LETTER 35
1

2 Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers, runners and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, runners, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I am an avid trail runner, and the climb up Skyline is one of the best local runs I have found since moving to Riverside. The trails there are absolutely beautiful, and they deserve to be protected for both present and future enjoyment. A focus on health and wellness in our communities is being touted by politicians throughout Riverside County, and this focus should include preservation of our outdoor areas. Safe, convenient access to our outdoor resources is a necessity. I urge you to not let this be spoiled by development.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Kate Panepinto
1 (cont.)
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 35
Kate Panepinto
[email protected]
Response to Letter 35
Response to Comments 35-1 through 35-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-190

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Trail Housing
FYI
From: Jorge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Skyline Trail Housing
Hi Corona leadership team,
Why is our Mach1 Mud run put on hold for water use, when thousands of houses keep being built? I understand developers have the right to use their land as they legally see fit. But I hope the city is not catering to them in a way that sells out our natural resources. It just seems sometimes like older neighborhoods get neglected and have lower performing schools and businesses as a result. I get frustrated recycling and conserving water, even driving less in order to live a greener lifestyle when we jump on the chance to add more traffic, congestion & pollution. The city does not even have a battery recycling program, and don't get me started on all the food carts, seems like our public servants are already stretched too thin? I would say getting our ducks more in order are is important before adding more ducks.

Corona is such a great unique city, I'd hate to have it become another cookie cutter town.

I hope you all use the Skyline Trail so that you know what we are giving up with each generation so we preserve as much as we can for future generations.

Jorge Loutzenhiser
Quality Assurance/IT Dept.

MillworX Precision Machining, Inc.

Ph: (951) 371-2683 x 315
_________
_|__o__|_
_|_(\)_|_
d‐b
This e-mail may contain proprietary information and/or copyright material. This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.

Information contained in and/or attached to this document may be subject to export control regulations of the European Community, USA, or other countries. Each recipient of this document is responsible to ensure that usage and/or transfer of any information contained in this document complies with all relevant export control regulations. If you are in any doubt about the export control restrictions that apply to this information, please contact the sender immediately.

This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which may be restricted by the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and/or the Export Administration Act. By accepting such data, the recipient agrees to comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and/or the Export Administration Regulations, as applicable.

LETTER 36
1

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 36
Jorge Loutzenhiser
Quality Assurance/IT Dept.

MillworkX Precision Machining, Inc.
[email protected]
Response to Letter 36
Response to Comment 36-1. With regard to project impacts on water supply, biological resources, traffic, public services (including schools), and infrastructure, please see the following responses to comments:
• Water Supply: 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel); • Biological Resources: 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman); • Traffic: 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin); • Public Services (including schools): 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright); and • Infrastructure: 9-10 Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Ronald R Papp).

With regard to project pollution impacts, the air quality and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts of the project are evaluated in Sections 4.B, Air Quality, and 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively, with supporting data provided in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report. As indicated on pages 4.B-37 and 4.F-21, respectively, with implementation of the proposed project design features, the project would result in less than significant construction and operational air quality and GHG emission impacts.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-192

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
FYI
From: Khris Gaines [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is [FIRSTNAME] [LASTNAME] and I am a resident of [CITY OF RESIDENCE], California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of LETTER 37
1

2 Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally know lots of people that have hiked in this area of Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Although I can only join the group on the weekends as I live in Los Angeles, this is super important and the best cause for action ever!
Thank you,
Khris Gaines
County of Los Angeles
1 (cont.)
2 3

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 37
Khris Gaines
[email protected]
Response to Letter 37
Response to Comments 37-1 through 37-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-195

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: SUBJECT: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eric [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: SUBJECT: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Eric Budinko and I am a resident of Alta Loma, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
LETTER 38
1

2 Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked, mountain biked, and ridden dual-sport motorcycle via Skyline . We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Eric Budinko
1 (cont.)
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 38
Eric Budinko
[email protected]
Response to Letter 38
Response to Comments 38-1 through 38-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-198

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephanie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for your reply but I still oppose allowing the properties to be built on. It is home to a mass amount of wild life that needs to be preserved and protected. The new home owners along with the project will destroy that and has already done. In addition, to the animals, hikers who love and know Skyline already know how the newest homes have already pushed us away to Foothill. Once the Foothill road is fully connected to Green River and completed where will the hikers go to park? Do you have plans to reassure the new home owners will not affect the hikes right to be able to go into the mountains and still be able to enjoy the peace that is there now? There will be many questions to come and I am not convinced that Skyline will still be accessible to the public. I grew up in Greenriver for 15 years and the trails there have been blocked off and destroyed by construction losing access to all previous trails. As it was not as known as Skyline it is no longer available to the public and now being trampled over. Broke my heart to pieces to see such chaos and no voices to save it. I am not for this project my answer is no to it.

Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Ms. Lomani,
>
> I thank you for your email.  The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years.  The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail.  It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought.  The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements.  City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land.  The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights. >
> I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968.  I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos.  The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916.  McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest.  Times have changed as things do change.

Some have been difficult and some have been sought.
>
> The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017.  This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike.  I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest.

LETTER 39
1 2
3 4

2 >
> http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails‐homepage/
>
> http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp‐content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf >
> Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail.  I do thank you for your email. >
> Sincerely,
>
> Jason Scott
> Corona City Council
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Stephanie [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:39 AM
> To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen > Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT > Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
>
> Mayor Jason Scott
> Vice Mayor Dick Haley
> City Council Member Randy Fox
> City Council Member Eugene Montanez
> City Council Member Karen Spiegel
> City Treasurer Aaron Hake
> Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
>
> Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications >
> Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:
>
> My name is Stephanie Lomani and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:
>
> REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.
>
> REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.
>
4 (cont.)
5

3 > REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. >
> REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 > single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. >
> I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities. >
> I personally have and still hike Skyline 100+ times with my family friends and have met new group and have been hiking with them since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected. >
> Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Stephanie Lomani
>
> Sent from my iPhone
5 (cont.)
6 7

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 39
Stephanie Lomani
[email protected]
Response to Letter 39
Response to Comment 39-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. With regard to the impacts of the project on biological resources, please see Response to Comment 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman). With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock). With regard to trail access, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comments 39-2 through 39-4. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 39-5 through 39-7 from Stephanie Lomani. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 39-5 through 39-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-202

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:36 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Imdad Yusufaly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

I, Imdad N.. Yusufaly, started my neurology practice in affiliation with Corona Regional Medical Center in 1992, and have made Corona my home ever since. I have been using the Skyline Hiking Trail for the last 20 odd years and have only seen a steady increase in folks using the trail; this is good for the health of our community. On a personal level, I have used these hills to train for expeditions around the world (summit of Elbrus, Everest Base camp, summit of Kilimanjaro, volcanoes of Ecuador, Aconcagua to name a few).

I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I urge you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities LETTER 40
1 2

2 and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Imdad N. Yusufaly
2 (cont.) Page 2857 of 3613
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 40
Imdad Yusufaly
[email protected]
Response to Letter 40
Response to Comment 40-1. The comment regarding the commenter’s use of the Skyline Trail is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, because this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 40-2. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-205

1 David Crook
From: Craig & Doll <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 5:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request for issue to be raised an email to be read to the Corona Planning Commission during April 11 public meeting
Dear Planning Commission,
I respectfully request that my email be read to the planning commission during their public meeting on April

11.  I am writing to request that the proposed parking lot on West Chase Drive providing access to Skyline drive be canceled and not developed further.  We live on the opposite side of the street from the proposed parking lot and we are very concerned about the impact that additional foot and street traffic will bring to the neighborhood.

We have lived here for almost 6 years and have been frustrated in the lack of maintenance on the street, the disregard for property and unending flow of liter by the visitors who come to travel up Skyline, the drug and alcohol use along this section of Skyline, the safety issues associated with the neighborhood, and the total disregard for the speed limit.  Having additional traffic will only make these problems worse.

The community seems to consider this area a waste area.  Every summer the weeds are waist high and every wind storm, there are palm fronds all over the road that stay there until we, to local residents, remove them ourselves.  The addition of more maintenance demands that will result from a parking lot opens us up to fallout of additional maintenance neglect.

If you drive along Chase, you will notice that most of the mailboxes are made of reinforced material.  This is because there is an unending stream of abuse to the mailboxes.  We have had baseball bat parties knocking over mail boxes and a constant flow of damage to the mailbox since we moved in.  The only mail box that is currently mounted on a pole was push over in February.  I stood it back up. The next day, it was run over by a car and crushed.  I replaced the mailbox and pole that weekend.  The next week, somebody pushed the new mailbox off the pole and left it hanging.  If we take the current foot traffic and now add more, who is going to pay for the property damage?  The residents?
There is not a day that goes by that we are not out on the street picking up trash that the current foot traffic discards: drink cups, water bottles, beer bottles, snack wrappers, …  People drop bags of garbage in the unmaintained city side of the street.  Of course it sits there until one of the residents picks it up.  Shall we add litter management for another parking lot full of cars to the resident's responsibility? LETTER 41
1

2 Our family particularly enjoys walking up Skyline as it is generally a nice walk.  However, there have been several instances that we pass groups of people being loud and disrespectful, smoking marijuana, and using alcohol.  This only further concerns the local residents if we attract additional people along this section.

If you drive by, you may notice that all the residents have large dogs.  Even with the current foot traffic, we are concerned about our own safety.  The common theme is not because we want to intimidate the joggers, but because there is enough traffic that we already feel a need to protect ourselves and our property.

With the current traffic, we have a continual flow of cars and motor cycles that race through the neighborhood, revving their engines during the day and the night.  The posted speed limit is 25, but the only people who respect the speed limit are the residents.  The street is very narrow and the curb is very short.

With this mix, it is already a safety hazard.  I would be interested to see the section of the traffic study that considers how the pedestrian safety will be impacted.

I appreciate your consideration with regards to the current residents who oppose the construction of the parking lot and the additional traffic that will result.  I ask that you please oppose the project before it further acerbates an already difficult maintenance and safety situation.

Thank you,
Craig Johnson
1400 W Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
--
Craig Johnson
Imagine the difference you could make. Make the difference in a way only you can. 1 (cont.)
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 41
Craig Johnson
1400 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 41
Response to Comment 41-1. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 41-2. The comments concerning existing safety hazards along the street system in the vicinity of the project site is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to how pedestrian safety would be impacted under the project, the Draft EIR addresses this issue in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix K. As indicated on page 4.M-36, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As indicated on page 4.M-39, the project would provide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians consistent with typical residential standards. In addition, the proposed traffic signals on Foothill Parkway would provide protected crossings to accommodate pedestrians, as required by the City at signalized intersections.

Response to Comment 41-3. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. With regard to the parking lot and associated traffic, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-208

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:12 AM
To: Megan Gifford
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Megan Gifford <m‐[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:10 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail LETTER 42
1

2 Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Khoa Vu and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have, enjoyably and with momentum, hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family.

We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling 2 3 4

3 groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Khoa Vu
4 (cont.) Page 2864 of 3613

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 42
Khoa Vu
Response to Letter 42
Response to Comment 42-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 42-2 and 42-3 from Khoa Vu.

With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, this is correct. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 42-2 and 42-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-212

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Erika Hernandez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:20 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concern.

Erika
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Scott <[email protected]>
To: Erika Hernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2016 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Hello Erika,
I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights.

I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest. http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails-homepage/
http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp-content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Erika Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
LETTER 43
1 2
3 4

2 City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Erika Hernandez and I am a resident of Ontario, California. I am writing as a concerned citizen that hikes the mentioned trails and ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline many times since 2013 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Erika Hernandez
626-384-0502
5 6
7

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 43
Erika Hernandez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 43
Response to Comment 43-1. The comment thanking the City for replying to the commenter’s April 11, 2016 e-mail containing Comments 43-5 through 43-7 is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, because this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Responses to Comment 43-2 and 43-4. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 43-5 through 43-7 from Erika Hernandez. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 43-5 through 43-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-215

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: michelle phillips [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:17 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Michelle Phillips and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

LETTER 44
1

2 I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

My son personally hikes / runs Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike

2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Michelle Phillips
Sent from my iPhone
1 (cont.)
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 44
Michelle Phillips
[email protected]
Response to Letter 44
Response to Comments 44-1 through 44-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-218

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:33 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Actual comment on the EIR.

From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development From: patricia realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; Terri Manuel Cc: David Wright
Subject: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Planning Manager Terri Manuel
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Treasurer, Public Works Director and Planning Manager:

I am providing to you my written comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Skyline Heights development.

Public Notification
I became aware of today’s public hearing from a fellow hiker. We heard public notice hearings had been posted and I found one, but it was 120 yards away from the Skyline trailhead, in front of the construction zone. So I went online to read the 662 page draft EIR. It’s a massive document and it requires a great deal of time to read, to understand and to appropriately vet the Skyline Heights development and its impact on our community, and its impact on a unique and valued natural resource that we have here in Corona which is our Skyline hiking trails. I speak for many residents who have asked for an extension of time for public comment.

LETTER 45
1 2

2 Aesthetics
You could take away from the EIR that the trail itself will not be altered. But not so fast… the report says that Skyline Heights will permanently alter views of scenic resources and the visual character or quality of the site.

The development would replace views of undeveloped foothills with residential homes and manufactured graded slopes. This is significant and unavoidable. There will be damage to viewshed from the Skyline trails which is enjoyed by hundreds of people daily. Recreationists visiting Cleveland National Forest will permanently lose views of existing undeveloped foothills.

Biological resources
We are users of the Skyline trails but we are also stewards. The EIR describes 6.17 acres of riparian and riverine habitat. This habitat is home to burrowing owls, and other sensitive, migratory and nesting birds. This very interaction with wildlife, whether it be rattlesnakes, coyotes, frogs, this is all part of an experience that is enjoyed and shared by recreationists. The development proposes to mitigate damage (destruction really) of this habitat by a combination of off- and on-site mitigation measures. As stewards, we understand our responsibility to the environment but also to our City. Mitigation must remain on-site only and give back to the community what it is taking away. It will not benefit Corona to mitigate offsite in neighboring Elsinore or further out.

Wildfire danger
And whenever urban wildlands interface, it creates extremely dangerous and complex fire situations. The site is designated a State Responsibility Area VHFHSZ or “very high fire hazard severity zone”. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones currently in Corona and this would introduce that classification and danger.

Who recalls the outdoor barbecue that destroyed 1,020 acres in the Prado Basin last year? The homes themselves may be to code but the development would locate a potential 1,028 residents within the wildland/urban interface area, which could pose a safety threat to the public and firefighters. Is this the type of risk to property, life and wildlands that the City wants to undertake? Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Water
And meanwhile, Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering 2.3 billion gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with droughttolerant vegetation. The City wants to create homes for 1,028 new residents while asking it's existing population to cutback it's water consumption by 28%? The city wants residents to install drought-tolerant vegetation while bulldozing 270 acres of native vegetation?

Land Use and Planning
3 4
5 6
7

3 Since the project proposes no new parkland or recreational facilities, the developer proposes to mitigate this by paying a park development impact fee. I am concerned any fees paid will not be earmarked or directly benefit access, maintenance or parking for the Skyline hiking trails.

Corona’s General Plan
I would like to remind you of Corona's General Plan goals and policies:
-to support the diverse needs of Corona's residents including opportunities for recreation and social and spiritual activity in balance with natural and open spaces; -to preserve and conserve open spaces for recreation and aesthetic relief;
-to sustain natural open spaces, hillsides and canyons; -to promote public places that are distinguished by their physical design, image, and effectiveness in nurturing community socialization, and perception as valued places; and, -to provide open spaces for residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment, and provide visual 'relief' from urban development.

I do not believe Skyline Heights is consistent with the General Plan with respect to these goals and policies.

We have something so unique here in Corona that many neighboring cities do not have. We have trails and quasi-public areas that provide easy access to our Cleveland National Forest. We have vistas from these trails where we can see Mount Baldy and Mount San Jacinto. We need to protect Skyline so that we’re not staring down into backyards of million dollar homes and losing a vital resource for a healthy community.

Planning Commissioners: you have an obligation to protect the natural beauty of our Corona foothills and our residents access to trails that lead into our national forests and the scenic views that are so unique and part of our City image and identity. Your decisions will impact not just the thousands of hikers, mountain bikers, runners, students and families who currently enjoy the beauty found throughout the Skyline trails, but also for many generations ahead. All of you, all of us, we are all stewards of these foothills.

I hope you will give careful consideration for a joint long-term solution between the residents, the developer, city leaders, county agencies and federal agencies that addresses the issues above, while promoting quality of life for Corona residents.

It's bad enough that we have the country's worst traffic. Let's not squander the opportunity to protect the very best thing about Corona.
7 (cont.)
8 9

4 Sincerely,

Patricia Anderson

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 45
Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 45
Response to Comment 45-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 45-2 through 45-9 below.

Response to Comment 45-2. The comment requesting an extension of time for public comment on the Draft EIR is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Response to Comment 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 45-3. With regard to project impacts to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to project aesthetic impacts, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 45-4. The location of mitigation is negotiated with the lead and regulatory agencies and may or may not include onsite mitigation. The mitigation rule for jurisdictional impacts is based primarily on potential for long term sustainability of the wildlife and botanical species. A functions and values assessment balances the proposed project impacts with the required mitigation and an appropriate mitigation ratio is applied, which accounts for temporal losses and compensates for the impacted functions and resources. So, while the standard regulatory policy is no net loss requiring a mitigation ratio of 1:1 of habitat creation for each acre of jurisdictional impact, the negotiated ratios with the regulatory agencies consider several factors.

The premise of the MSHCP is consistent with this rule in that areas of potential development have been identified and areas of valuable habitat with long term conservation value have been targeted for acquisition and conservation. The analysis of functions and values includes beneficial human uses for recreational purposes, education, scientific study / contribution, as well as aesthetic value; however, these human uses are not valued above wildlife and botanical species needs when offsetting impacts to jurisdictional areas and impacted species. Wildlife agencies generally do not consider long term conservation where human interaction is occurring or potentially increasing. In addition, mitigation areas that are created, either on or offsite, must have specific characteristics that will support sensitive species on a long-term basis without assistance.

Based on the 2013 focused surveys and 2016 general surveys, the project site does not currently support burrowing owl. Since the project site supports suitable habitat, a preconstruction survey will be conducted 30 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with the MSHCP to ensure burrowing owls are not occupying the site at the time of construction (see Mitigation Measure BIO-MM12 in the Updated Biological City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-223

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Assessment and the RDEIR).Response to Comment 45-5. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society). Furthermore, approval of the project would not introduce increased fire danger to any other properties in the City.

Response to Comment 45-6. Please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson).

Response to Comment 45-7. With regard to project parks and recreation impacts, please see Response to Comment 1-9 under “Proposed On-Site Park and Recreation Facilities” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the mitigation of project parks and recreation impacts: (1) as indicated in Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District), the project would not impact Skyline Trail or any other dedicated public access trail; (2) as indicated in Response to Comment 1-9, the project’s park and recreation impacts relate to the amount of parkland required to serve the project residents and meet City park requirements, not impacts to dedicated public access trails (of which there will be none); (3) the payment of the City’s park development impact fees, as required by Mitigation Measure PS5, is intended to mitigate project impacts associated with the provision (or lack thereof) of on-site parkland required to serve project residents; and (4) per City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees, park development impact fees collected under Chapter 16.35 are intended to provide project residents with adequate parkland, and thus not create undue pressure on existing City park facilities. For all these reasons, the park development impact fees to be paid by the project would be appropriately earmarked to provide parkland elsewhere in the City to serve project residents, not for access, maintenance or parking for the Skyline hiking trails.

Response to Comment 45-8. With regard to project impacts to open space, please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to project consistency with applicable City of Corona General Plan open space goals and policies, this was evaluated in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages 4.I-19, the project would be consistent with all applicable City General Plan open space goals and policies. Support for this conclusion is provided in Table 4.I-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, which provides a consistency analysis for each applicable City General Plan land use and open space goal and policy, including those identified in the comment (in order of listing in the comment, Policy 1.1.1 addressed on page 4.I-20, Goal 1.2 addressed on page 4.I-21, Policy 1.5.1 addressed on page 4.I-22, and Goal 1.16 addressed on page 4.I-24). It is noted that several of the goals/policies identified in the comment actually represent only a portion of the goals/policies referenced and/or combine sentences or portions of sentences to emphasize open space, when in fact some of the referenced goals call for balanced growth and a range of uses, only one of which is open space; please see Table 4.J-2 for the full text of each goal/policy. Furthermore, as indicated in Response to Comment 1-4: (1) both the County and the City designate the project site for urban development; (2) approximately 36 percent of the greater annexation area would be zoned agriculture and permanent open space land; (3) the project would largely preserve Mabey Canon and other surrounding open space features; (4) the project would not impact the designated trail head to Skyline Trail in the annexation area; and (5) the project would preserve vehicular and trail access to the CNF. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use open space goals and policies.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-224

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 45-9. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 45-1 through 45-8.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-225

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails (April 11, 2016 Planning Commission) FYI
From: David James [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; [email protected]; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Protect Skyline Trails (April 11, 2016 Planning Commission) Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is David Armenta and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

LETTER 46
1

2 I personally have hiked Skyline, Tin Mine Canyon, and Hagador Canyon on several occasions. I have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction). We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Armenta
Corona, Ca
2 3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 46
David (James) Armenta
[email protected]
Response to Letter 46
Response to Comments 46-1 through 46-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-228

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:26 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Brendan M [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Jason Scott; Terri Manuel
Subject: Protect Skyline Hiking Trail
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of Corona for all 21 years of my life, I have seen the city of Corona grow. Seemingly, it has grown every year. New homes, new streets, more lanes on the freeway, once vacant lots used for recreation activity growing up turned into a concrete jungle, our impacted freeways acquiring bridges hundreds of feet high which block views of the majestic mountains. While some may argue that these have been helpful additions to the city, I argue that all I have seen is an increase in traffic. It not takes me roughly an hour to make a trip just to starbucks on most occasions. In the mornings, I have to wake up at 5am to get to my first class at CSUF at 8:30.

The reason for this is traffic. The addition of even more houses would make this even worse. On most days the traffic on Green River is even worse than the traffic on the 91 freeway, and I am only driving a mile and a half to the on ramp. Living on Green River, this is how I must access the freeway to go west. And while you say the new renovations to Green River, adding two new lanes and traffic signals, I can say from first hand experience that this is not helped as of yet and on some days has made it worse.

Currently, the state of California is in a drought. The rain we have been seeing this El Nino year have been helping. But, In order for this water to have any affect on out state of the drought, the water must be absorbed back into the ground, into the natural reservoirs. By building new homes, the water that once would be able to be absorbed back into the ground would become run-off water that would go to waste. The residents of Corona have already been asked to cut back on water usage by 28%. What would be the effect of 1,000+ new residents? It wouldn't be good, I'll tell you that.

Skyline hiking trail has been used by many residents of the area for recreational activity, hiking, mountain biking, absorbing the views, taking in and learning wildlife. This historical trail needs to be protected to allow future use of this trail. Some use this as a getaway from civilization. We do not want to see housing developments on our nature hike.

I really hope these concerns are taken into consideration on the issue. -Brendan McGeown
Corona Resident
LETTER 47
1 2
3

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 47
Brendan McGeown
[email protected]
Response to Letter 47
Response to Comment 47-1. The comments regarding how the commenter has seen the City growth over time, with associated increases in traffic, loss of open space used for recreation activity, and blockage of views, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).With regard specifically to project traffic impacts along Green River Road, as indicated in Table 4.M-2, two study intersections and one roadway segment along Green River Road were evaluated in the analysis, including Intersection 1 (Serfas Club Dr./Green River Rd.), Intersection 2 (Paseo Grande/Green River Rd.), and Roadway Segment 1 (Green River Rd. between Serfas Club Dr. and Paseo Grande). As indicated in Tables 4.M-7, 4.M-8. And 4.M-9 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant traffic congestion at these intersections under Existing With Project, 2020 With Project, and 2035 With Project conditions, respectively. As indicated in Tables 7-2, 8-2 and 9-2 of the TIA, the project would result in less than significant traffic congestion at this roadway segment during these same three conditions.

Response to Comment 47-2. With regard to project impacts on the infiltration of rainwater to the local groundwater table, this is evaluated in Section 4.H-1, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, with supporting data provided in Appendix H, Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan.

As indicated on page 4.H-5, the Temescal sub-basin, which covers a 26 square mile area of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, underlies a portion of the project site. As indicated on pages 4.H-26 and 4.H27, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table, and as such, the impact would be less than significant. Storm runoff within the development would still be directed to the same streams and channels, and would be absorbed into the ground as it has naturally in the pre-project condition. Although the conveyance systems for storm water runoff would be slightly different than the pre-project condition, the location of the discharge points would be the same. Please refer to Sections 2 and 3 of Appendix H for the pre- and post-project drainage shed and detention requirements.

With regard to project impacts on water supply, please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 47-3. With regard to project impacts to hiking trails, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the aesthetics impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-230

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
States Forest Service).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-231

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:25 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Foothill Extension
FYI
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:10 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: Foothill Extension
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your timely response regarding this matter, but I fell this response was a cut and paste type of response, not a sincere, and heartfelt response. I am a concerned and law abiding Corona citizen, who by the way has lived here since 1970, and I too have seen a lot of growth in our town, and by no means do I want to stifle our cities growth, but there has to be a limit. I wish there were a little more compassion coming from our City Council members towards the people that live here and have no choice but to work out of town.

Your response has already made me feel that no matter what we as concerned Corona citizen's have to say, that this cities plight regarding traffic, and overcrowding has already been sealed by those of you who will be making a profit.

Thank you for your "response",
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Scott <[email protected]>
To: luvndirish <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 10:10 am
Subject: Re: Foothill Extension
Hello Laura,
I thank you for your email. I am aware of the delays the $1.3 billion project is causing all of us and especially those headed west in the morning. I also know about getting to a Disney position as my son-in-law is in management and needs to also get to his Disney job.

The freeway expansion is critical as more and more people are buying new homes east (Riverside and beyond) and south (county area, Lake Elsinore, and Temecula area) yet work in Orange County. Just recently, a development of over 1,000 home units was approved south of Corona.

The Foothill Parkway was planned long ago and its not being built long ago placed a tremendous hardship on the residents of Ontario Avenue between Paseo Grande and Border. Foothill is also necessary to connect all parts of Corona.

The Corona Council is aware it is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other times sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. The City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council can legally deny a private property owner's desire to build and develop their land. The
I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race LETTER 48
1 2
3

2 Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

Thank you,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
On Apr 11, 2016, at 8:50 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Corona Elected officials,
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the council meeting in person, as I wished to address each of you personally. As a long time resident of Corona, and one of your constituents, I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona especially along the Foothill Extension. If any of you have experience living in Corona, while working outside of Corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic. I myself work for the Walt Disney Company, and will be forced to leave this dream job due to it is already taking me 2-3 hours to get to work in the morning. With this proposed addition to our town, there will be NO WAY I will be able to make my dream job a reality.

I know my job security is of no concern to you, but for me this is my life line, and means of making a living.

If memory serves, the foothill project was dreamed up in the late 80's early 90's as a way to alleviate the traffic through the residential areas of Corona. It is just now being built and will prove to be "too little, too late" to serve the needs of CURRENT traffic conditions. Adding approximately 300 new dwelling units with an estimate of 2-3 vehicles per household making several trips a day each will significantly affect the quality of life and worsen the commute for your constituents.

I do understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the City's financial situation. Please weight the cons of this development including additional gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely,
Laura Brennan-Mayhugh
3 (cont.)
4 5
6

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 48
Laura Brennan-Mayhugh
[email protected]
Response to Letter 48
Response to Comment 48-1. The comment that the commenter wishes there were a little more compassion coming from the City Council towards the people that live and work in the City is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Responses to Comments 48-2 through 48-6 below.

Response to Comment 48-2. Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-3. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 48-4 through 48-6 from Laura Brennan-Mayhugh. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 48-4. The comment urging the City Council to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona, especially along the Foothill Extension, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-5: Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-6. The request that the City weigh the pros (e.g., cash flows) and cons (e.g., gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, impacts to quality of life) of the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR addressed: the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis; the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the project in Sections 4.B, Air Quality, and 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with supporting data provided in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report; and the impacts of the project on forestry resources in Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. As indicated therein, the project would result in: less than significant traffic impacts with implementation of the stipulated mitigation measures (page 4.M-44); less than significant air quality and GHG impacts with implementation of the proposed project design features (pages 4.B-37 and 4.F-21); and less than significant impacts on forestry resources (page 4.O-8). With respect to quality of life impacts, CEQA does not require the evaluation of such impacts.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-234

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Opposition to Large (~300DU) Development on Foothill Extension FYI
From: Aaron Cox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:56 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: Opposition to Large (~300DU) Development on Foothill Extension Jason,
Thanks for writing me back. You do make some valid counter points regarding right to develop the land they rightfully own. I hope the development comes with transportation improvement conditions so that improvements can happen when needed, and not 15 years too late.

Regards,
-Aaron
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Aaron,
I thank you for your email. I am aware of the delays the $1.3 billion project is causing all of us and especially those headed west in the morning. The freeway expansion is critical as more and more people are buying new homes east (Riverside and beyond) and south (county area, Lake Elsinore, and Temecula area) yet work in Orange County. Just recently, a development of over 1,000 home units was approved south of Corona.

The Foothill Parkway was planned long ago and its not being built long ago placed a tremendous hardship on the residents of Ontario Avenue between Paseo Grande and Border. Foothill is also necessary to connect all parts of Corona.

The Corona Council is aware that development is sometimes difficult while at other times sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. The City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council can legally deny a private property owner's desire to build and develop their land. The
I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

Thank you again,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
LETTER 49
1 2
3 4

2 On Apr 11, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Aaron Cox <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Corona Elected officials,
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the council meeting in person, as I wished to address each of you personally. As a long time resident of Corona, and one of your constituents, I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona especially along the Foothill Extension. If any of you have experience living in Corona, while working outside of Corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic.

If memory serves, the foothill project was dreamed up in the late 80's early 90's as a way to alleviate the traffic through the residential areas of Corona. It is just now being built and will prove to be "too little, too late" to serve the needs of CURRENT traffic conditions. Adding approximately 300 new dwelling units with an estimate of 2-3 vehicles per household making several trips a day each will significantly affect the quality of life and worsen the commute for your constituents.

I do understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the City's financial situation. Please weight the cons of this development including additional gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely
-Aaron M. Cox
--
-Aaron M. Cox
5 6
7

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 49
Aaron Cox
[email protected]
Response to Letter 49
Response to Comment 49-1: With regard to the comment concerning the right to develop private property, please see Response to Comment 1-3 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, and the timing of required traffic mitigation: (1) please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin); (2) as indicated on pages 4.M-43 and 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, mitigation measures required to reduce the significant traffic impacts of the project to less than significant levels shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project; and (3) as indicated on page 4.M34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that construction of the project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Extension Project were completed. However, as of late 2016, the Foothill Parkway Extension has been completed and is currently operational.

Response to Comments 49-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 49-5 through 49-7 from Aaron Cox. Please see Responses to Comments 9-11 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Brad Roekle) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Responses to Comments 49-3 and 49-4. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 49-5 through 49-7 from Aaron Cox. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the UrbanRural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 49-5. Please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 49-6: With regard to project traffic impacts, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the comment that project traffic would significantly affect the quality of life, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, quality of life is not an issue requiring analysis under CEQA.

Response to Comment 49-7. Please see Response to Comment 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-237