Agenda packet — Corona City Council, July 1, 2026 (part 27 of 33)

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW:

Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Dick Haley; Jason Scott; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel Subject:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members
My name is Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez and I am a resident of Norco, 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.

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 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
I understand the trail head has already been 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. I believe 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.

LETTER 50
1 2

Page 2891 of 3613 ends

2 Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, 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,
Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
3

Page 2892 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 50
Wendie Stevens-Rodriguez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 50
Response to Comments 50-1 through 50-3. 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 2-240

Page 2893 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Proposed Development
FYI
From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:45 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Jason Moquin Subject: Skyline Heights Proposed Development
Hello Corona Elected officials,
I will be attending the planning meeting this evening. But also wanted to put something in writing. As a resident of the foothills 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. On days like today, my husband spent over 2 hours trying to get to work, half of that was just trying to get ON the freeway. On a "normal" day, it takes him over an hour to go 30 miles. He'll do the same coming home, and on some nights will not even be able to see our children before they go to sleep.

The foothill project is intended to alleviate the traffic through the residential areas of Corona. Adding approximately 300 new houses 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. The new homes that are being built (including all of the other current and proposed residential developments in Corona) will, in effect, negate any potential traffic improvement hoped to gain from the Foothill extension and the 91 project.

In addition, in Corona's General Plan states that, "Corona will respect and enhance it's environmental resources." and "accommodate land use development in balance with the preservation and conservation of open spaces for recreation, aesthetic relief, natural resource value, and public safety." Thus far, I see no attempt to enhance it's environmental resources. I see the views of our beautiful hills and open spaces being bulldozed, and homes being built directly adjacent to, and visible from our one and only hiking trail. Most other thriving cities offer their residents ecological preserves and walking trails such as the Santa Rosa Plataeu, and innovative open-space parks for children such as Adventure Park in Irvine. Besides Skyline, which continues to be choked by development, Corona offers none of these. Every open space is re-zoned for housing development. Corona is not Orange County's bedroom, and we should stop treating it as such.

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, school over-crowding, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

I love Corona, and want to see it thrive. We need to focus our energy on the redevelopment of our downtown area. I believe with that, and supply and demand, we could see an amazing re-birth of the homes in our historical districts, such as in Redlands, Orange, Fullerton, etc. If we keep building new homes, there is no incentive to "fix up" the older homes. And people will continue to dine, shop, and play in other communities.

LETTER 51
1 2
3 4

Page 2894 of 3613 ends

2 I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
4 (cont.)

Page 2895 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 51
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 51
Response to Comment 51-1 and 51-2. With regard to project traffic impacts, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the incorporation of cumulative development into the traffic analysis, please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 51-3. With regard to project consistency with City of Corona General Plan’s open space goals and policies, please see Response to Comment 45-8 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson.

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

Response to Comment 51-4. 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. Please see Response to Comments 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

With regard to impacts to schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the comment that the City should focus its energy on the redevelopment of the downtown, 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.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-243

Page 2896 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:01 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Proposed Skyline Heights Development
From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:48 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Proposed Skyline Heights Development
Hello,
I will be attending the planning meeting this evening. But also wanted to put something in writing. As a resident of the foothills of Corona, 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. On days like today, my husband spent over 2 hours trying to get to work, half of that was just trying to get ON the freeway. On a "normal" day, it takes him over an hour to go 30 miles. He'll do the same coming home, and on some nights will not even be able to see our children before they go to sleep.

LETTER 52
1 2
3 4

Page 2897 of 3613 ends

2 I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Sincerely,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
4 (cont.)

Page 2898 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 52
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 52
Response to Comments 52-1 through 52-4. Pease see Responses to Comments 51-1 through 51-4.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-246

Page 2899 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
Subject: FW: Proposed Parking Lot on Mangular and Chase for the Skyline Hikers From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Proposed Parking Lot on Mangular and Chase for the Skyline Hikers April 11, 2016

To the City of Corona, Community Development Department Attn: Terri Manuel, Planning Manager

We have been advised that the city is about to propose a plan to build a public parking lot on the south side of the County Flood Control and Water Conservation Basin located on Chase Drive between Mangular and Skyline Drive. This parking lot will be for the hikers and bikers that visit the Skyline Trailhead one mile away.

My husband and I own 8 acres across the street from this proposed parking lot. Our 8 acres consists of 3 separate properties, our residence and two other homes, which are rental residences for two other families. Our property line runs up Skyline Drive from Chase to Foothill, which is where you want all the people to walk to the Trailhead.

We oppose this parking lot in the strongest possible terms and we are very concerned that you are thinking about putting a public parking lot in a quiet residential neighborhood.

We have had negative experiences for the past 12 years with the Skyline hikers and bikers. Some of these people would park on Skyline or Chase to walk up to the Trailhead. Some would urinate on our fences and bushes (because there is no public restrooms and they have been out on the trail all day), they would throw their trash all over the street, they would not pick up after their dogs, they would return to their cars at all hours of the evening and hangout and party at their cars before going home, they would block our driveways, go onto our private property and steal our avocados, they would drive their dirt bikes fast down the middle of Skyline Drive Street, being a nuisance and causing a disturbance. At night the wash and area because of its privacy would become a popular gathering and hang out spot for youths to hang out and party. We are afraid if this parking lot is built all these issues will become a problem on a much bigger scale.

When we heard about this proposed parking lot, we decided to go up on Foothill and keep a log of how many cars would park there at different times of the day. What we found out is very disturbing. At times there would be over 150 cars parked there at one time. And each car does not have only one person in them, but 2, 3, 4, 6 even more people would pile out of the cars. That’s over 300 people on some days that would be walking up our property line. Skyline Drive from Chase Drive to Foothill is a public street. It is only a single lane and it serves as a street for us and our renters to go to and from our property. If you put in this parking lot and have all these people walk up this street, you would be denying our renters and us a safe access to our homes and property and denying us a safe surrounding. Our renters have told us that they foresee a safety issue if this parking lot is built and they fear for the safety of their children and family in an area that was once considered safe, and if you approve this parking lot, they will be moving from their houses.

In your Corona Municipal Code book, under Off-Street Parking you have listed that parking facilities shall be located not more than 300 feet from the building or use it is required to serve. When I brought this up to some of the City employees they advised me the Skyline Trail begins at the corner of Skyline Drive and Chase. We and our Attorney have looked through several city and county documents and nowhere does it state this portion of Skyline Drive is a legal trail. In fact it’s listed as a public street. You cannot just say this is a trail because you want to put in a public parking lot close by.

It is true that the Skyline Trail Hikers and Bikers need a parking lot after Foothill is completed. But putting their parking lot in our residential area is not a good solution. This will cause an enormous traffic problem, safety issue, a noise issue, public nuisance, a huge spillover parking onto our residential neighborhoods, and a decrease in property value in the neighborhood.

We ask you to please consider the effects this will have on our neighborhood and to come up with another area closer to the Trailhead or off of Foothill before all these new homes are built in the Skyline Heights.

LETTER 53
1 2
3

Page 2900 of 3613 ends

2 Thank you,

Ann Long
Donald Long
1460 W Chase Drive,
Corona, CA 92882

Page 2901 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 53
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 53
Responses to Comments 53-1 through 53-3 Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-249

Page 2902 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: I oppose encroachment at skyline trails
Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: I oppose encroachment at skyline trails
Mrs. Spiegel,
I am a homeowner near skyline trail. I highly oppose the proposition to build more houses near skyline. With the Foothill Parkway extension, there will be enough traffic as it is. Adding additional homes out here will only make things worse.

My family and I have resided in corona for many years and our backyard backs right up to foothill/skyline. Please do not build more homes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Rachel DosSantos
Sent from my iPhone
LETTER 54
1

Page 2903 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 54
Rachel DosSantos
[email protected]
Response to Letter 54
Response to Comment 54-1. The comment expressing opposition to building more homes in the Skyline area 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 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 2-251

Page 2904 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: 300 home development proposal
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: 300 home development proposal
I oppose the new 300 home development that is proposed once the foothill extension is complete. This project will add almost 3,000 daily car trips to our gridlocked city.

Respectfully,
Jennifer K. Daughaday
(951) 358‐9669
Sent from my iPhone stopped in traffic
LETTER 55
1

Page 2905 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 55
Jennifer Daughaday
[email protected]
Response to Letter 55
Response to Comment 55-1. The comment expressing opposition to 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 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 2-253

Page 2906 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:34 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Foothill Expansion
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Sean Soto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:14 AM
To: Dick Haley; Jason Scott; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: Foothill Expansion
To Whom it May Concern,
I am wholeheartedly opposed to the 300 new home development proposal at the Foothill Expansion.

Traffic is already a nightmare in our city, until that is handled first (and public transportation closely following that), we don’t need to spend resources on adding more homes only to create more traffic.

Why not focus on bringing more business/jobs to Corona? Corona is a wonderful city for new families, spending less time in traffic and more time at home seems like something we would all vote for.

Thank you,
-SRS
LETTER 56
1

Page 2907 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 56
Sean Soto
[email protected]
Response to Letter 56
Response to Comment 56-1. The comments expressing opposition to project, and requesting that the City focus on bringing more business/jobs to the Corona, 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).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-255

Page 2908 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
JC – FYI Supervisor Tavaglione has been cc’d on these.

From: Tavaglione, John [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Field, John; Eugene Montanez
Subject: Fwd: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
John Tavaglione
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Eugene Montanez <[email protected]> Date: April 11, 2016 at 8:07:39 AM PDT
To: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>, "Tavaglione, John" <[email protected]>
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.

LETTER 57
1

Page 2909 of 3613 ends

2 Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Reply‐To: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:36 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 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 Elsa Yoshida and I am a resident of Murrieta, 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.

Page 2910 of 3613 ends

3 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 enjoyed, and benefited and have hiked Skyline numerous times since 2014 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,
Elsa Yoshida

2 (cont.)
3 4

Page 2911 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 57
Elsa Yoshida
[email protected]
Response to Letter 57
Response to Comment 57-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 57-2 through 57-4 from Elsa Yoshida. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site has never been part of the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), the project site is private property that is located wholly within the CNF. 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.

Response to Comments 57-2 through 57-4. 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 2-259

Page 2912 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:25 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline trail
Message sent to Mayor.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Malinda [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Skyline trail
Hi
I am writing to oppose the 300 homes being built near skyline drive. We already have way too much traffic in this city and making the expansion will just increase that. The area is expanding the road on foothill and with 300 more homes it's likely not worth expanding as it will not make much difference with more cars using it. The trails are already surrounded by homes built a few years ago and it's not the same scenic outdoor feel you got when the homes were not there. I am sure there are plenty more open land areas somewhere else that these investors could build homes on.

Please save our trails and build somewhere else. Thanks Sent from my iPhone
LETTER 58
1

Page 2913 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 58
Malinda Vance
[email protected]
Response to Letter 58
Response to Comment 58-1. The comment expressing opposition to 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 traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

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

With regard to the impacts of the project on hiking trails, 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 2-261

Page 2914 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Stop the madness!
Message sent to Mayor.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sylvia Sparks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:51 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Stop the madness!
Since I am stuck, not moving in car this morning, took me to get to work in 2 hours, please i oppose the new 300 home development that is proposed once the foothill extension is complete. This project will add almost 3,000 daily car trips to our gridlocked city.

Sent from my iPhone
LETTER 59
1

Page 2915 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 59
Sylvia Sparks
[email protected]
Response to Letter 59
Response to Comment 59-1. The comment expressing opposition to 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 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 2-263

Page 2916 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:52 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: Brittney Pecore [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 10:14 AM
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 Brittney Pecore and I am a resident of Corona, California, in the Mountain Gate Area. 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.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the LETTER 60
1

Page 2917 of 3613 ends

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 have lived in Corona for 26 years, since I was 6 years old, and I remember when Skyline started at Chase. It has changed so much since the homes on Foothill went in and to images part of our forest and natural hiking trail disappearing to more homes breaks my heart. I personally have hiked with my parents, children and friends, taken mountain bikes up, and enjoyed the view from the top. Please don't take this away from us. There are NO other hiking trails in corona and manufactured green belts do not substitute for nature.

In addition to the quality of life the skyline hiking trail provides, the negative impacts of more homes in corona vastly outweigh whatever economic positives you see. Traffic, congestion, speeding and overcrowding are diminishing our quality of life as small families and communities. I've lived in corona since 1989 and have watched it expand to the concrete jungle of tract homes upon more tract homes. I've watched orange groves burned (Main & Foothill, while I was in high school), cut down (Cajalco & 15 fwy) and abandoned (Lincoln & Highgrove). I've seen open fields leveled and developed (El Cerrito & 15 fwy - which is causing AWFUL traffic and issues). The LAST thing we need is another tract.

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,
Brittney Pecore
1 (cont.)
2 3

Page 2918 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 60
Brittney Pecore
[email protected]
Response to Letter 60
Response to Comments 60-1 through 60-4. 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 2-266

Page 2919 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:54 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:54 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
This one came after the meeting started.

From: lolly janoski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:16 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
Hello Terri,
I am writing my response to the EIR that is being discussed at the meeting tonight. I want these comments to be part of the public record as I am unable to attend. I have lived in Corona since 1977. I taught at Corona High School and my kids went all through Corona schools and now have successful careers and families and live here, also. My husband currently works in Corona.

Here are some concerns:

1. Residents of Corona are required to reduce their water usage by 50%. I have reduced mine by 70%. It is irresponsible to destroy native chaparral that requires no city water, to build homes that will use water. It doesn't matter whether they have recycled water, they are still using more water than that land is currently using.

2. Regardless of building codes for fire safe homes, there will be a fire there one day, and firefighters lives will be in danger trying to protect homes that should not be so close to a National forest. Once again, it is irresponsible.

3. The City Council maintains that once the 91 FWY expansion is completed, there will be no local traffic problems. This might be the case for a few years, IF the city would stop residential construction. There is no point in "building out" Corona as the city manager suggests. That just increases water usage and traffic.

4. Regarding the project planned at Skyline Drive, this area is a fabulous resource of beauty, a delicate ecosystem, and a wonderful recreation area. There should be a paradigm shift in the focus of the council regarding this natural treasure. We should all be doing everything we can to protect it for now and for generations to come.

If you go to see the waterfall in Monrovia, you wind through an old residential neighborhood to get to the parking at the trail head. If the lot is full, you are allowed to park on the residential streets. The neighbors are proud of their natural habitat and eager for people to enjoy it.

LETTER 61
1 2
3 4
5

Page 2920 of 3613 ends

2 If you drive down the 133 to Laguna, there is parking at trail heads and port-a-potties and information about the trails.

The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor board approved a $2.9 million contract to install wildlife fencing along the 241. What a commitment to nature and wildlife! This was done in conjunction with UC Davis, who has had previous projects that tagged and monitored the mountain lions of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Yet, in Corona, a neighborhood of a few houses was able to block the public from easy public access to the Cleveland National Forest because they did not like the traffic. It is as though hundreds of people who use this land for recreation on a weekly basis are less important than homeowners. This land has been used for decades by the public. Way before the tract of homes was built. Now, there is talk of moving the access even further from the Skyline Trail. Once again, the people who love and enjoy this area take second place to development of homes. It's not appropriate.

Our beautiful foothills contain mountain lions, deer, Bobcats, to name a few, plus many, many species of birds.

In fact, there are probably only about 20 mountain lions left in the Santa Ana Mountains. Their biggest threat is man. Building houses close to their territory is a recipe for disaster as many are shot who wander close to neighborhoods. The construction, the noise, the pollutants will wreak havoc on the delicate balance of this ecosystem. The mitigation is to try to avoid noise, construction, etc. during January to September for nesting birds, which is pretty funny, really. We all know that isn't going to happen. So, the EIR states they will basically do their best to not disrupt nature.

Please try to embrace this natural resource and enhance it for the enjoyment of the public. I think this area could be really friendly to hikers, bikers, and nature lovers, and a source of beauty and pride for all of Corona if we all pool our resources and make a commitment to preserving it, not using it for monetary gain. It is a unique spot in Corona. Let's keep it that way.
5 (cont.)
6

Page 2921 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 61
Lolly Janoski
[email protected]
Response to Letter 61
Response to Comment 61-1. The request that the comments in this letter be part of the public record is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. As this request does not raise a substantial issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

With regard to the balance of the comment, it 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 61-2 through 61-6.

Response to Comment 61-2. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 61-3. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard” (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society).

Response to Comment 61-4: The comments that that the 91 FWY expansion will only reduce traffic problems in the City for a while, and that there is no point in building out Corona because that would just increase traffic and water usage, these comments are 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 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 61-5. With regard to the aesthetics, biological resources, and open space impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 1-4 (Letter 1, National Forest Service), 32-1 (Letter 32, K.

Zimmerman), and 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

With regard to the impacts of the project on hiking trails, and on trail access and access to the CNF, 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 existing public use of the project site, the project site represents private property.

Furthermore, no dedicated public access trails, other than Skyline Trail which will be preserved, bisect the project site. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comment 61-6. The proposed Project will not remove wildlife movement corridors but will have an impact on overall habitat and range for this species through loss of habitat. Mountain lions are “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” under the MSHCP. Therefore, impacts to mountain lion have been addressed in the MSHCP, in addition to the project EIR. Management of “edge effects” under Urban/Wildland City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-269

Page 2922 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Interface Section 9.5 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) will reduce indirect impacts to all wildlife species, including mountain lions. Please see Response to Comment 4-11 above. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-MM13 was added to the EIR to reduce human and mountain lion conflicts:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM13. A mountain lion (Puma concolor) program shall be developed by the project Applicant for City review and approval in an effort to reduce likelihood of human-lion conflicts. The program shall include the following components:

1. A suitable homeowner education package for distribution to residents / new owners;

2. A suitable road sign program warning of the presence of mountain lions and the need for reduced speeds and increased caution;

3. A suitable CC&R provision limiting unsupervised outdoor pets and pet feeding practices that may encourage mountain lions to enter residential yards in search of food; and

4. A suitable mountain lion safety plan.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-270

Page 2923 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:20 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline
Message sent to the full City Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elaine Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:19 PM
To: Randy Fox
Subject: Skyline
Mr. Fox ‐ I would like to request that you vote to keep Skyline as is and not approve additional housing in that area. This has been a hidden treasure (along with Tin Mine Canyon) in Corona where people can get away and feel a part of nature which adding homes would destroy. There has been so many housing and apartment complexes approved that the subsequent cars and people are going to make all the Freeway improvements obsolete. Please say no to this one.

Thank you . . . Elaine Harris
LETTER 62
1

Page 2924 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 62
Elaine Harris
[email protected]
Response to Letter 62
Response to Comment 62-1. The comment requesting that the City note approve the 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 existing public use of the project site, the project site represents private property.

With regard to the impacts of the project on traffic, biological resources, and open space, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin), 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman), and 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-272

Page 2925 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: housing development
Message sent to the full City Council
From: Linda Terry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:40 PM
To: Jason Scott; [email protected]; Randy Fox; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: housing development
HELLO 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 41 years, 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 though the residential areas of corona.. It is just now being build 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. In as much as I understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the city's financial situation, please weigh in the cons of this including additional gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flow that will come from this development.. I personally would think that creating things to do for the already over crowded corona and jobs or welcoming businesses here in the city would be a much more lucrative and sensible solution. No more housing here in corona we are already over populated...

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter,,, Respectfully
Linda TerryCorona, Ca 92879
Rightclick
here to
downlo
ad
picture
s. To
help
protect
your
privacy,
Outlook
prevent
ed
automa
tic
downlo
ad of
this
picture
from
the
Interne
t.
;-)
Linda Terry
[email protected]
LETTER 63
1 2
3

Page 2926 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 63
Linda Terry
Corona, CA 92879
[email protected]
Response to Letter 63
Responses to Comments 63-1 and 63-2. The comment requesting that the Corona City Council consider the impacts of the proposed project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR provides a complete and full analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the project in accordance with CEQA requirements.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, including along the recently completed Foothill Parkway extension, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 63-2: 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.M-34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that construction of the project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project were completed. As noted previously, the construction of this project was completed in late 2016 and the roadway is currently operational.

Response to Comment 63-3. 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. Please see Response to Comments 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

The comments expressing opposition to more housing in the City of Corona, and requesting that the City focus on overcrowding and bringing more jobs and businesses to the City, 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.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-274

Page 2927 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Planning and Zoning Meeting April 11, 2016 regarding the Parking for the Skyline Trailhead Hikers
April 11, 2016

To the City of Corona, Community Development Department Attn: Terri Manuel, Planning Manager

We oppose this parking lot in the strongest possible terms and we are very concerned that you are thinking about putting a public parking lot in a quiet residential neighborhood.

LETTER 64
1 2
3

Page 2928 of 3613 ends

2 In your Corona Municipal Code book, under Off-Street Parking you have listed that parking facilities shall be located not more than 300 feet from the building or use it is required to serve. When I brought this up to some of the City employees they advised me the Skyline Trail begins at the corner of Skyline Drive and Chase. We and our Attorney have looked through several city and county documents and nowhere does it state this portion of Skyline Drive is a legal trail. In fact it’s listed as a public street. You cannot just say this is a trail because you want to put in a public parking lot close by.

Thank you,

Ann Long
Donald Long
1460 W Chase Drive,
Corona, CA 92882
(951) 316-0952

3 (cont.) Page 2929 of 3613
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 64
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 64
Response to Comments 64-1 through 64-3. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-277

Page 2930 of 3613 ends

LETTER 65
1 2
3 4
5 6

Page 2931 of 3613 ends

Page 2932 of 3613 ends

Page 2933 of 3613 ends

Page 2934 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 65
Dwight Woodward
2272 Adrienne Drive
Response to Letter 65
Response to Comment 65-1. Please see Response to Comment 11-2 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

Response to Comment 65-2. With regard to the comment that all blue line streams should not be disturbed, please see Response to Comment 11-3 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

With regard to the comment that any retention basins should be conditions to be planted and maintained with native plants, 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.

Where water quality basins or riparian/riverine mitigation are proposed on-site, revegetation plans will incorporate native species. Non-native invasive species are expressly prohibited and all non-natives will be eradicated during the establishment period as part of the revegetation efforts. The project will be conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for water quality. See Draft EIR discussion in Section 4.H Hydrology and Water Quality.

Response to Comment 65-3. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that there still seems to be an impact on Skyline Drive by having homes built too close to the road, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the comment that the development needs some type of document for the owners of the houses to sign to make them aware of the recreation use of Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5- 1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the comment that the glare from the street lights will hinder the night time views, the Draft EIR evaluated the light and glare impacts of the project in Section 4.A, Aesthetics. As indicated on pages 4.A21 and 4.A-22, the project (including project street lighting) would not create substantial light or glare which would adversely affect views in the area, and thus the light and glare impact would be less than significant.

As indicated on page 4.A-21, this conclusion is based on the fact that project street lights would be required City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-282

Page 2935 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
to adhere to established City Municipal Code standards for the design, placement, and operation of street lights, including shielding and directing lights downward with minimum spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses, and open space.

Response to Comment 65-4. With regard to the comment that in-lieu fees for recreation should stay within a mile of the development, please see Response to Comment 45-7 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson).

With regard to the comment than an Outlook needs to be connected to a public path, please see Response to Comment 11-1 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

Response to Comment 65-5: The comment that the traffic light proposed at the Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue intersection should not be installed because Foothill Parkway is intended to alleviate the pressure from Ontario is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, Mitigation Measure TR-2, requiring the installation of a traffic signal at Intersection 4 (Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue), is required to reduce the project’s significant traffic impact at this intersection under existing, 2020 and 2035 conditions as indicated in Tables 4.M-7 through 4.M-9 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, this intersection is in the City’s Fee Program as a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City.

Response to Comment 65-6. Please see Responses to Comments 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) and 11- 10 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward). Please see Response to Comment. The traffic analysis is complete as written.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-283

Page 2936 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:26 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 5:28 PM
To: Joanne Coletta; Darrell Talbert
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails
FYI
From: David James [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:52 PM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: Protect Skyline Trails
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.

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 LETTER 66
1

Page 2937 of 3613 ends

2 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, 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.

Thank you,
David Armenta
Corona, Ca
1 (cont.)
2 3

Page 2938 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 66
David (James) Armenta
Corona, CA
[email protected]
Response to Letter 66
Response to Comments 66-1 through 66-3. 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 2-286

Page 2939 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:15 AM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Fyi.

From: Dennis Ralls
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Cc: Nelson Nelson; Vikki Li; Albert Espinoza; Joanne Coletta Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Terri,

Please see our responses highlighted below.

Thank you,

DENNIS RALLS

PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM MANAGER
CITY OF CORONA | PUBLIC WORKS | TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
400 S. Vicentia Avenue | Corona, CA 92882‐2187
Direct: (951) 279‐3664 | Hours: M‐F 8am‐5pm

Please drive safely!

From: Nelson Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:02 AM
To: Dennis Ralls; Vikki Li; Albert Espinoza
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR

Good morning,

While most of the questions below will be addressed by Joanne’s group, we should provide a response to the traffic related questions. Please review the two questions regarding traffic and provide a response to Terri with a Cc to Joanne and myself by the end of this week. If you need more time, please coordinate with Terri so she has time to compile everything into one response.

Thanks,
Nelson

From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR

Hello –
LETTER 67 1
2

Page 2940 of 3613 ends

2 I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

General Questions
Question: Throughout the document it provides mileage from the “project site” to schools, parks, fire/police buildings, freeway entrances. Are these based on the homes in Maybe Canyon or Skyline Dr? EIR should note, as the mileage would be different. Additionally, is it based on existing roadways, or after the expansion of the Foothill Parkway? Again, EIR should note that.

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) RESPONSE: The analysis and projections of traffic were based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which takes in all known information to model the projected demands of the Southern California’s transportation infrastructure. The SCAG RTP is detailed enough to be used by local transportation engineers to project the estimate demands on local roadways. The SCAG RTP’s projected 2035 traffic demand was used to determine the background traffic that would exist without the project to determine a baseline.

The project’s projected impact was then taken into account on top of this background demand to determine the ultimate demand on the infrastructure in 2035. The project analysis then used more current and localized traffic studies such as the Foothill Westerly Extension to estimate the near term traffic demands. All projects known at the time of these studies were incorporated into this project study. Each project is required by law to perform its own independent study in a similar manner to determine if that project will have a significant impact warranting mitigation. So if a project was not included in this project’s study, that project would still have to show that its impacts are not significant or that mitigation measures be taken to counteract that project's impacts.

Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Alternative 3
Question: in Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative – while this would only allow for 45 single family homes as opposed to the 292 in the original project request – it says that under this alternative, all of the 270.9 acre project site would still be annexed, but only Phase III of that project would be developed. What it doesn’t note is what guarantee do the residents of Corona have that once all of the land is annexed, as noted in this alternative, would it not be built upon at a later date? That should be included in the final EIR.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Population/Housing/Employment
Question: Is the formula for Jobs/Housing Ratio on Page 448 based on total jobs vs. total homes? If so, that is insufficient and should not be used for this analysis, especially in the City of Corona that is not job rich in high 2 (cont.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

Page 2941 of 3613 ends

3 income/white collar jobs, which presumably the buyers of these million dollar homes will be employed as. Can an analysis be rerun, to look at ratios that match jobs (pay‐scale) with similarly priced housing availability? I would argue that we are not job rich in the types of jobs necessary to support the buyers of these homes, which means that the 300‐ 600 adults that will be moving in, will be joining me on my M‐F commute into OC/LA.

Question: Page 449 states that there a deficit of “above moderate” priced homes in Corona. That this accounts for 40% of total homes needed in Corona (on a scale of low income housing to above moderate housing). What is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home? The document states that this was determined by RHNA and approved by SCAG on 10/4/12. Where is that document? The residents of Corona should be able to fully understand this analysis, as it seems to be a large point in the DEIR as to why this project is under consideration.

Question: How are the grades on Foothill expected to be worse in the year 2035 if the project expands than in 2020 (F vs. a B). What happens in 2035 that would cause such a radical change? ANSWER: Table 4.M‐9 of the DEIR lists the existing Level of Service (LOS) compared to the LOS at 2035 without the project, with the project, and with the project and its mitigation measures included. In 2035, the LOS of Foothill at Elysia and at Trudy is expected to reach a level of F without the project and is expected to worsen with the project. Traffic signals can dramatically increase the efficiency and reduce delay. Traffic signals are part of the mitigation measures for these two failing intersections and are how the LOS will be increased to acceptable Levels.

Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Water Conservation
Questions: How will the additional landscaping – both for the homes and the surrounding community grounds, be reconciled with Corona’s water conservation plan? How will the removal of natural watersheds be mitigated to the benefit of the foothills and Corona residents? Neither of these concerns were detailed in the DEIR as far as I recall and needs to be addressed.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

Rules for Annexation
Watching the footage of the Temescal Canyon “No Annexation” meetings, one of the council members told the audience that 2 rules applied when considering annexation:
1) Cannot financially impact existing residents
2) Any type of Annexation has to stand on its own
Question: Where in the DEIR is the financial support for this project. Other than the notes that no new schools/firehouses/police stations, nor personal will be needed, I did not see an assessment of revenue expected from taxes/fees/etc. vs. the expense of servicing this new community. On page 453 the document states that “no new jobs” 10 (cont.)
11 12 1314 15161718

Page 2942 of 3613 ends

4 would directly result from this project. So the revenue from the building and taxes paid by the homeowners would be the only incoming revenue to the city – correct? Please update the final EIR to include.

Question: Where is the justification in the EIR that this new neighborhood can “stand on its own.” Statement: Our Jr. High Schools are currently impacted and cannot accommodate any new students, additional residents – with no additional fire/police personal, no new parks when we’re at an open space deficient of 161 acres (as noted on page 475)is not “standing on its own.”

Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Sincerely –
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/ 18 (cont.)
19 20

Page 2943 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 67
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 67
Response to Comment 67-1. This comment is an e-mail exchange between City officials regarding the questions and comments made in this letter by Courtney Kasey, and indicates that City staff has prepared responses to the traffic questions and comments in the letter. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Response to Comment 67-2. 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 67-3 through 67-20.

Response to Comment 67-3. The distances identified from the project site to schools, parks, fire/police buildings, freeway entrances, etc., are as the crow flies, not along roads, and are measured from the closest point within the project site. This clarification has been added to the Draft EIR in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 67-4. The Final EIR includes: (1) an introduction; (2) written responses to comments received from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and members of the public during the 45-day Draft EIR public review period (including mailed and e-mailed comments and comments received at the two Planning and Housing Commission hearings held on April 11 and May 9, 2016); (3) corrections and additions to the Draft EIR; and (4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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 minimum 10-day review period so that members of the public may review the Final EIR before certification.

Also, the public will also be afforded the opportunity to comment on the project and Final EIR during the City Council hearing on EIR certification, which will be considered by the City Council in the decision making process regarding the project.

Please note that the April 11, 2016 City Council meeting referenced in the comment was actually the first of two Planning and Housing Commission hearings referenced in the response above.

Response to Comment 67-5. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130, 15065, and 15355, the Draft EIR addresses not only the impacts of the project, but also the impacts of the project in combination with cumulative development. The cumulative analysis is provided for each environmental issue (Aesthetics, Land Use, Traffic, etc.) under a separate “Cumulative Impacts” subheading in each section in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The development assumptions used in each cumulative analysis are identified in each cumulative analysis, and as permitted under CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), are based on one or both of the following depending on the nature of the environmental issue:

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-291

Page 2944 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
(1) List Approach: A list of past, present, and probable future projects (e.g., cumulative or related projects) in the project vicinity produced by the City from its project status database. The list is provided as Table 3-1, Related Projects List, in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The locations of these related projects are also mapped in Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map, in Chapter 3.
(2) Growth Projections Approach: A summary of growth projections contained in adopted General Plans, related planning documents, or prior environmental planning documents (e.g., City of Corona General Plan, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), etc).

Because the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for each environmental issue is different (for example, the geographic extent for the cumulative air quality analysis is the entire South Coast Air Basin, whereas the geographic extent for the cumulative aesthetics analysis is limited to the viewshed surrounding the project site). The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for each environmental issue is identified on pages 3-2 and 3-3 of the Draft EIR.

As indicated in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1, multiple related projects along Main Street, Green River, Dos Lagos, and Segras Club are included in the related projects list.

The cumulative demand for fire, police, parks, schools and libraries discussed on pages 4.L-23 through 4.L25 is not quantified and is not required to be quantified under CEQA. CEQA looks at the environmental impact of new public facilities on the environment and not on the social impact the project would have on existing services. The project does not warrant the construction of new facilities associated with police and fire departments, parks, library and schools. However, proponents of new development would be required to pay applicable City of Corona development impacts fees. These fees are collected by the City and used to construct anticipated public infrastructure to maintain acceptable levels of service and capacity to support development that will occur over time. In the case of public schools, school impact fees (SB 50) are also required to be paid with new development to fund the construction of educational facilities. The proponent for this project and future development within the annexation boundary will pay school impact fees directly to the Corona-Norco Unified School District. CNUSD is responsible for the operation of the schools within their district and is responsible for assessing the need of additional education facilities based on their student capacity. Therefore, as indicated on pages 4.L-23 through 4.L-25, cumulative public services impacts would be less than significant.

With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, as indicated in the City’s response to this question in, Comment 67-5, the analysis and projections of traffic were based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which takes in all known information about past, present and reasonable foreseeable future development (e.g., related or cumulative projects) to model the projected demands of the Southern California’s transportation roadway infrastructure. The SCAG RTP is detailed enough to be used by local transportation engineers to project the estimated cumulative demands on local roadways. The SCAG RTP’s projected 2035 traffic demand was used to determine the existing and projected future background traffic that would exist without the project to determine a baseline, and thus incorporates cumulative development in the area. The project’s projected impact was then added to this background traffic to determine the ultimate demand on the roadway infrastructure in 2035, and as indicated on page 4.M-44, project traffic impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-292

Page 2945 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
prescribed mitigation measures.

Response to Comment 67-6. See Response to Comment 3-2 above. Updated focused botanical surveys were conducted during the 2016 survey season to supplement previous work and provide current data. The 2016 rainfall year was better than previous years’ surveys. Rainfall was more than any of the previous three years individually and should have allowed most species to bloom. 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 Assessment and the RDEIR).

Response to Comment 67-7. The Draft EIR evaluated the impacts of a range of feasible alternatives to the project which could attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, along with the required No Project Alternative, in Chapter 5, Alternatives. As indicated in the comment, and on page 5-24 of the Draft EIR, one of the alternatives evaluated was Alternative 3, Phase III Only Alternative, where all of the 394.8-acre annexation area would be annexed to the City, but only Phase III of the project (e.g., 45 single-family residential units north of Maybey Canyon) would be developed. While the whole of the 394.8-acre annexation area would be annexed under this alternative: (1) the entire annexation area is located within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) which has its own land use regulations which prohibit or severely limit the development potential of large portions of the annexation area; (2) four open space parcels within the annexation area (37.61 acres) are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not subject to future development (at least, not by private developers); (3) portions of the annexation area are currently designated and zoned as open space by the County and would continue to be designated and zoned as open space once annexed to the City; and (4) any future development in the annexation area beyond the project site would be subject to comprehensive CEQA review and mitigation of any significant impacts once such a development proposal is brought forth. Furthermore, the portions of the annexation area outside the 270.9-acre project site are not owned by the applicant, and the applicant has no power to issue a guarantee ensuring that development does not occur in those areas.

For all these reasons, a guarantee ensuring that development does not occur in the future in the balance of the annexation under Alternative 3 is neither possible nor warranted.

Response to Comment 67-8. The mitigation measure BIO-2 in the original Draft EIR was renumbered as BIO-MM11 in the recirculated Biological Resources section in the RDEIR and provides the following:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM11. To prevent impacts to sensitive, migratory, and nesting birds (including raptors), clearing, or other work in native habitats, should be avoided during the critical nesting period of January 1 – September 1. If work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiation of clearing and/or grading. If nesting birds are present, a nesting bird plan will be developed and implemented and include appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts, including maintaining a buffer area until fledging has occurred. Active bird nests should be mapped utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) (getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest) and a buffer will be flagged around the nest (typically 300 feet for most species, 500-foot buffer for raptor nests), as determined appropriate by the biologist. Construction should not be permitted within the buffer area while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Once fledging has occurred no further avoidance is required.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-293

Page 2946 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
This mitigation measure requires that initial vegetation removal, often called clearing and grubbing, will either avoid removal during the nesting season or if vegetation removal will occur during the nesting season, then a nesting bird survey must be completed prior to removal in order to avoid disturbance to bird nesting behavior. If nesting birds are located during the pre-construction survey, the nest and a buffer around the nest are fenced until the juveniles have fledged or the nest is inactive. The avoidance area or buffer size is dependent upon the type of bird species nesting. Once vegetation is removed, nesting is no longer expected to occur since the nesting habitat has been removed and work may proceed. For portions of the site that cannot be cleared prior to the nesting season, a clearance nesting bird survey is required immediately prior to impact.

An additional mitigation measure (BIO-MM14) was added to prevent wildlife impacts during clearing and grubbing.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14. A qualified biologist shall monitor clearing and grubbing activities as they impact vegetation on the site. A qualified biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species.

If wildlife is discovered, the qualified biologist shall move it out of harm’s way or allow it to move safely out of the work area prior to initiation of project activities.

Potential day roosts for pallid bat (e.g., caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, buildings, etc.) shall be inspected by a qualified bat biologist prior to initial ground disturbance. If bats are roosting, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review prior to impacts. If a colony is discovered during the breeding season (March-October), the biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, including, but not limited to sound walls, buffers, and project phasing/timing, to prevent disturbance to the colony until all young are weaned and capable of foraging independently.Response to Comment 67-9. The mitigation measure BIO-3 in the original Draft EIR concerning burrowing owl was renumbered as BIO-MM12 in the recirculated Biological Resources section in the RDEIR. Mitigation measure BIO-MM12 states that if burrowing owls are identified on site during the clearance survey the following actions will be taken as outlined in the MSHCP: If the site is within the Criteria Area, then at least 90 percent of the area with longterm conservation value will be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the burrowing owl are met. However, the project site is not in an MSHCP Criteria Area.

Therefore, the following measures will be taken:

1. If the site contains, or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on-site burrowing owls will be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols. a. Occupied nests will be avoided during the nesting season (February 1-August 31) along with a buffer of 300 – 500 feet dependent on the level of disturbance surrounding the burrow. b. Burrow exclusion will be utilized outside of the nesting season by installing a one-way door in the burrow openings. After which, the burrow will be closed following verification the burrows are empty through site monitoring and scoping.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-294

Page 2947 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs will be conserved onsite.

Response to Comment 67-10. The Draft EIR evaluated the population, housing and employment impacts of the project, including jobs/housing balance, in Section 4.K., Population, Housing and Employment, and evaluated the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting information provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. As indicated on page 4.K-4, the existing jobs/housing ratio within the area of the City of Corona identified by SCAG is 1.60 (e.g., jobs-rich) and is based on the total number of available jobs versus the total number of existing households. As further indicated on page 4.K-4, SCAG considers a jobs/housing ratio of 1.25 as ideal. Thus, as indicated on page 4.K-9 the addition of the project’s 292 residential units to this jobs-rich area would help provide housing for residents and help make up for the high jobs/housing ratio within the City. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.K-7, the project would: be within applicable local growth projections; support applicable housing policies of the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, and the housing allocation goals of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; substantially help meet the housing demand of the growing local population; and result in less than significant population, housing and employment impacts. Furthermore, the SCAG demographic data does not measure jobs-housing balance by comparing different job pay scales to similarly priced housing, nor is it standard CEQA practice to provide such analysis in an EIR. Therefore, the analysis is sufficient as written, and no “rerun” of the analysis is required.

With regard to the commenter’s contentions that there is a link between the jobs/housing balance estimates identified in Section 4.K and the traffic analysis provided in Section 4.M, and that if the jobs/housing balance estimates were rerun as the commenter requests, there would be more project-related commuting out of the area and greater traffic impacts than identified in Section 4.M, this is incorrect. As indicated on pages 4.M-18 and 4.M-19 of the Draft EIR, the project trip distribution assumptions applied in the traffic analysis were not based in whole or in part of jobs/housing balance, but rather were based on consultations with City staff which considered: the project site’s proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e., SR 91 Freeway), expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals, and the recently completed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project; the traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the project site; existing intersection traffic volumes; and ingress/egress available at the site.

Response to Comment 67-11. The Draft EIR evaluated the population, housing and employment impacts of the project, housing needs for above moderate income groups in the City of Corona, in Section 4.K, Population, Housing and Employment. As indicated on page 4.K-5, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), 40% (308 units) of the City’s housing need is for above moderate income housing units. As indicated in Table 4.K-4 on page 4.K-5, the source data for this information is available on SCAG’s website at http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf. Hence, the requested document is available to anyone who has access to a computer and the internet. The 2012 RHNA with the applicable source data is also available for review at the local officers of SCAG.

With respect to the question of what is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home, this is a function of the average income in the City of Corona. Nonetheless, the specific market value or ultimate sales price of new homes, whether as part of the proposed project or otherwise, is not germane to the EIR or the City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-295

Page 2948 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
analysis of issues presented therein. As such, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 67-12: The Draft EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). As indicated on page 4.M-14, nine traffic scenarios or conditions were evaluated in the traffic analysis, including existing (baseline) without and with the project, year 2020 without and with the project, year 2035 without and with the project, and three miscellaneous scenarios with recommended improvements.. In referencing pages 513 and 515 of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referencing Table 4.M-8 (Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary) and Table 4.M-9 (Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary). Each of these tables has separate columns identifying traffic conditions for the given year without and with the project, with the “Without Project” columns assuming existing + future cumulative traffic for the given year, and the “With Project” columns assuming existing + future cumulative + project traffic for the given year. Both tables are pre-mitigation (e.g., before implementation of the proposed mitigation measures). The “future cumulative traffic” includes traffic the traffic associated with other housing projects (and other development) currently or projected to be built in the City by the given year.

The existing (baseline) conditions analysis assumes that the Foothill Parkway Extension Project is not yet completed, while the year 2020 and 2035 analyses assume that the Foothill Parkway Extension project is completed. Please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) for further discussion of what “future cumulative traffic” includes.

Response to Comment 67-13: The traffic “grades” on Foothill are worse in 2035 than in 2020 because, while Foothill is assumed to carry both existing and project traffic during both analysis scenario years, Foothill will carry more traffic from cumulative development in 2035 than in 2020 (e.g., the 2035 analysis includes cumulative growth projected to occur in the City and its environs through 2035, while the 2020 analysis includes cumulative growth only through 2020).

Response to Comment 67-14: Please see Response to Comment 77-6 (Letter 77, Wilson Tsing).

Response to Comment 67-15: The comment that the City’s level of service D standard for arterial streets is a very low standard is noted, but does not raise a substantive comment on the discussion in the Draft EIR.

The level of service D threshold is adopted by the City and is the acceptable level of service for arterial streets. Therefore, the discussion in the Draft EIR is consistent with the City’s adopted standard.

Response to Comment 67-16: The Draft EIR evaluated the water supply impacts of the project, including water conservation, in Section 4.N, Utilities, with supporting dating provided in Appendix L, Water Study, Recycled Water Study, and Sewer Study. As indicated on page 4.N-7, the project would utilize reclaimed water for HOA landscape irrigation via development of an on-site network of reclaimed water pipelines that connect to the City’s reclaimed water line proposed in Foothill Parkway as part of the Foothill Parkway Extension Project, which has recently been completed in late 2016. As indicated on page 4.N-39, the proposed landscape design would incorporate water conservation measures including water-conserving planting, efficient irrigation systems, and water-conserving fixtures in accordance with Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan, of the City of Corona Municipal Code (CMC). As indicated on page 4.N-49, the project would meet or exceed the water efficiency requirements set forth by Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and would be required to reduce water consumption by 15 percent in accordance with CMC Chapter 13.26. As indicated on page 4.N-61, the project would result in less than significant water City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-296

Page 2949 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
supply impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation requiring payment of the City’s CDWP water connection fees.

With regard to project impacts to watersheds, the Draft EIR evaluated the hydrology (drainage) and groundwater impacts of the project in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, with supporting data provided in Appendix H, Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan. As indicated on page 4.H-27, approximately 96 acres of the 270.9-acre project site would remain in natural open space, as would the 123.9 acres outside the project site but within the greater annexation area. As indicated on page

4.H-26, 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 level. As indicated on page 4.H-27, the project would add only approximately 40 acres of impervious area in the form of streets, rooftops, driveways and sidewalks which would represent approximately 15 percent of the project site or about four percent of the total tributary area. As indicated on page 4.H-27, the project would be designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns of the site and area.

Also, although the project’s conveyance systems for storm water runoff would be somewhat different than the pre-project condition, storm water runoff within the development would still be directed to the same streams/channels, off-site detention basins, and other unlined storm water conveyance features, and thus would be still be absorbed into the ground (albeit in different locations) as occurs naturally in the preproject condition.

Response to Comment 67-17: Please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson). Please also see Response to Comment 67- 16 above.

Response to Comment 67-18: Below is the link to the annexation staff report that was prepared for the Planning and Housing Commission. The annexation staff report includes the Plan of Services and the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). The EIR is responsible for evaluating the physical changes to the environment and not the fiscal impact of a project. However, the fiscal impacts are required to be analyzed in the annexation request, which was done in the annexation staff report. The fiscal analysis was also included as an exhibit in the staff report in addition to the Plan of Services.
http://www.discovercorona.com/getattachment/91b68aff‐4caf‐4c8d‐8004‐890bcfad91e0/file.aspx The FIA identifies the fiscal impacts of the project to the City. The FIA shows the ongoing expenses and revenues to the City’s General Fund following annexation and buildout. Jobs would be created at the City to provide ongoing services. Construction jobs and related employment would result from construction. The FIA shows that the project is fiscally positive to the City’s general fund (i.e., projected revenues exceed costs) and to the County post annexation. In addition, the project is subject to development impact fees associated with schools/fire and police services among others as per City requirements.

Response to Comment 67-19: The FIA shows that the project would stand on its own from a fiscal impact to City’s general fund. It should also be noted that Deputy Fire Chief Mike Samuels at the public hearing stated that no additional staffing was needed because the project would be served by the City’s existing fire stations. However, future police personal are added in FIA costs associated with the annexation. See Response to Comment 67-18 above for additional discussion.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-297

Page 2950 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 67-20. 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 67-1 through 67-19.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-298

Page 2951 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:55 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Cc: Jason Scott; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Darrell Talbert; Aaron Hake; David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Courtney,
The Community Development Department has received your comments on the Skyline Heights projects. Your comments will be included in the record and the Final EIR will include responses to the comments from the public. After the close of the public comment period on May 2, 2016 on the Draft EIR, the city will begin the preparation of the Final EIR, which will be the next published document on the EIR. The responses in the Final EIR will be made available to the public 10 days before consideration by the City Council. To confirm, the continued meeting on May 9, 2016 is the Planning and Housing Commission, not the City Council.

Below is the link to the annexation staff report that was prepared for the Planning and Housing Commission. The annexation staff report includes the Plan of Services and the fiscal information. The EIR is responsible for evaluating the physical changes to the environment and not the fiscal impact of a project. However, the fiscal impacts are required to be analyzed in the annexation request, which was done in the annexation staff report. The fiscal analysis was also included as an exhibit in the staff report in addition to the Plan of Services. http://www.discovercorona.com/getattachment/91b68aff‐4caf‐4c8d‐8004‐890bcfad91e0/file.aspx If you have additional comments on the Draft EIR before the close of the comment period on May 2, 2016, please send them to my attention at [email protected].

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Joanne Coletta
Community Development Director
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR
Hello –
I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

Page 2952 of 3613 ends

2 would be different. Additionally, is it based on existing roadways, or after the expansion of the Foothill Parkway? Again, EIR should note that.

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Question: What are the plans in place should a burrowing owl be found in that study. The land has been sold, rezoned, and everything is in place to start demolishing the land. Where is the contingency plan for finding an owl? Population/Housing/Employment
Question: Is the formula for Jobs/Housing Ratio on Page 448 based on total jobs vs. total homes? If so, that is insufficient and should not be used for this analysis, especially in the City of Corona that is not job rich in high income/white collar jobs, which presumably the buyers of these million dollar homes will be employed as. Can an analysis be rerun, to look at ratios that match jobs (pay‐scale) with similarly priced housing availability? I would argue that we are not job rich in the types of jobs necessary to support the buyers of these homes, which means that the 300‐ 600 adults that will be moving in, will be joining me on my M‐F commute into OC/LA.

Page 2953 of 3613 ends

3 Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

2.3B gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with drought‐tolerant 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 and natural watershed?
Rules for Annexation
Watching the footage of the Temescal Canyon “No Annexation” meetings, one of the council members told the audience that 2 rules applied when considering annexation:
1) Cannot financially impact existing residents
2) Any type of Annexation has to stand on its own
Question: Where in the DEIR is the financial support for this project. Other than the notes that no new schools/firehouses/police stations, nor personal will be needed, I did not see an assessment of revenue expected from taxes/fees/etc. vs. the expense of servicing this new community. On page 453 the document states that “no new jobs” would directly result from this project. So the revenue from the building and taxes paid by the homeowners would be the only incoming revenue to the city – correct? Please update the final EIR to include.

Statement: Stating that this new community won’t financially impact existing residents is also a stretch in my opinion – work hours lost due to increased traffic, increased gas for our cars as we idle on the freeway… Question: Where is the justification in the EIR that this new neighborhood can “stand on its own.” Statement: Our Jr. High Schools are currently impacted and cannot accommodate any new students, additional residents – with no additional fire/police personal, no new parks when we’re at an open space deficient of 161 acres (as noted on page 475)is not “standing on its own.”
Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Page 2954 of 3613 ends

4 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/

Page 2955 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 68
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 68
Response to Comment 68-1. This comment is a response from the City to the commenter explaining the remainder of the EIR process, including a link to the staff report prepared by City staff for the City’s Planning and Housing Commission, and explaining that the Plan for Services and fiscal information for the annexation is not required to be included in the EIR but is included in the staff report. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comments 68-2 through 68-20. Please see Responses to Comments 67-2 through 67-20 (Letter 67, Courtney Kasey).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-303

Page 2956 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Courtney,
The developer is responsible for paying all application fees associated with the project. The city circulated a Request For Proposal (RFP) and invited consultants to submit proposals to prepare the EIR for this project. The RFP was a competitive process and the city chose PCR Services to prepare the document. The city, not the developer, has the service contract with PCR Services to prepare the EIR. The developer however is responsible for funding the EIR because it is an application associated with their project. The developer has paid that money to the city in addition to all other fees associated with the processing of their applications.

The technical studies included in the EIR were done by consultants hired by the developer. The city and the EIR consultant do a peer review of all the technical studies prior to the city accepting the studies and including them in the EIR.

The developer is responsible for paying all building permits and development impact mitigation fees associated with their project. These fees are paid prior to the construction of the homes.

I also received your second email and your comments and the city’s responses will be included in the Final EIR.

Thank you.

Joanne Coletta
Community Development Director
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:26 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Hello –
A few other questions, that I would like to understand regarding this project:
‐ Can you clarify if Richland conducted/paid for/organized all of the 3rd parties that went into the DEIR analysis or did the city pay for that and contract the 3rd parties who did the analysis? ‐ Is the developer paying the fee per permit, per home, or will the home buyers be paying for that? ~ Courtney Kasey
From: Courtney Kasey
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; LETTER 69
1 2

Page 2957 of 3613 ends

2 '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darrell Talbert' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]:' <[email protected]:> Subject: Skyline Heights Project ‐ Questions on DEIR
Hello –
I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Page 2958 of 3613 ends

3 Question: Page 449 states that there a deficit of “above moderate” priced homes in Corona. That this accounts for 40% of total homes needed in Corona (on a scale of low income housing to above moderate housing). What is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home? The document states that this was determined by RHNA and approved by SCAG on 10/4/12. Where is that document? The residents of Corona should be able to fully understand this analysis, as it seems to be a large point in the DEIR as to why this project is under consideration.

Traffic
Question: On page 513 & 515 In the years 2020 and 2035, were these conditions/traffic ratings “Existing with Project, with mitigation” are they based on this project alone or do they account for all of the other housing projects currently being built and/or projected to be built? Do they assume the open operation of the Foothill expansion? Question: How are the grades on Foothill expected to be worse in the year 2035 if the project expands than in 2020 (F vs. a B). What happens in 2035 that would cause such a radical change? Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

Page 2959 of 3613 ends

4 Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Sincerely –
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/ 21

Page 2960 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 69
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 69
Response to Comment 69-1. This comment is a response from the City to Comment 69-2 explaining who conducted, paid for, and organized the EIR and associated technical studies. The City’s response is correct, except that PCR Services Corporation is now ESA PCR.

Response to Comment 69-2. The developer is responsible for paying all application fees associated with the project. The City circulated a Request For Proposal (RFP) and invited consultants to submit proposals to prepare the EIR for this project. The RFP was a competitive process and the City chose ESA PCR to prepare the document. The City, not the developer, has the service contract with ESA PCR to prepare the EIR. The developer however is responsible for funding the EIR because it is an application associated with their project. The developer has paid that money to the City in addition to all other fees associated with the processing of their applications.

The technical studies included in the EIR were done by consultants hired by the developer. The City and the EIR consultant did a peer review of all the technical studies prior to the City accepting the studies and including them in the EIR.

The developer is responsible for paying all building permits and development impact mitigation fees associated with their project. These fees are paid prior to the construction of the homes.

Response to Comments 69-3 through 69-21. Please see Responses to Comments 67-3 through 67-21 (Letter 67, Courtney Kasey).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-308

Page 2961 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:55 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Attachments: US Fish and Game Species analysis.pdf; Wildlife1.jpg; wildlife2.jpg; wildlife3.jpg; wildlife4.jpg; wildlife5.jpg; wildlife6.jpg
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:21 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Hello –
As promised at the end of my questions e‐mail sent 4/12, the following summarizes, and then goes into detail, where I believe the DEIR is flawed or needs to be amended.

Starting with the summary, this was the take away I had from the 100+ people who attending the Planning Commission Meeting on 4/11 and the 40+ speakers, including myself and my son. ‐ Traffic, traffic, traffic
o Our current infrastructure will not support the amount of building going on in Corona. Many of us spend hours on the freeway and sometimes an hour just to GET ON the freeway. o While some road projects are in the works, we are not confident that this will alleviate the situation or will we just be in the same position we are now once the new residents are here. ‐ Mitigation
o There is insufficient mitigation throughout the document – from lack of open space ratios, to traffic infrastructure, to loss of forest and views. Paying a fee/fine will not benefit the residents of my city. ‐ Impact to Wildlife
o There are over 40 endangered species in the area proposed for development. One of the residents showed a photo slide show of countless animals that never even made the EIR, which undermines the validity and thoroughness of the research conducted.
‐ Impact to the Trail System
o While 2 main hiking trails will not be impacted (Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon) the rest most certainly will.

From our views to the impact on the animal life and vegetation, all of this is of great concern. Again, no amount of mitigation will solve for these concerns.
‐ Existing Resources
o No new police/fire/schools – when we’re currently impacted at the Jr. High Level, have issues with our emergency services getting to where the need to go – especially during rush hour. Do you know that on 4/10 there was an accident on the 91 in Corona at 5am. 911 was immediately called and it was 6:30am before services could reach the accident due to traffic (they couldn’t even get on the freeway). ‐ Fire
o This will be the first time Corona will have a VHFHSZ in our city and with no additional firefighting resources, and the potential destruction that could result from that lack of support – to not only the homes, but the Cleveland National Forest, is a huge concern.
‐ Water Conservation
LETTER 70
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

Page 2962 of 3613 ends

2 o We are in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. To remove natural vegetation and watersheds, for manicured lawns and general water usage, makes no sense.

Specifically, here are my issues/concerns with the 662 page DEIR where I believe data is lacking, questionable or flat out false and should be amended:

Traffic/Transportation

Page 510 ends

five of these are relevant (noted below), as the other intersections are only relevant if the project proceeds:
‐ Serfas Club at Green River
‐ Paseo Grande at Green River
‐ Paseo Grande at Ontario
‐ Boarder at Ontario
‐ Lincoln at Ontario
On a scale of A‐F, all 5 of these are C and below. The only mitigation proposed is 2 lights on Boarder and Paseo Grand – at Ontario. Two traffic lights as mitigation for 300‐600 more cars is not sufficient and additional mitigation is needed.

Nor do I see any support in the DEIR on how these two lights will upgrade the scores for those two intersections to a B rating. I drive Ontario every day M‐F…the proposal to put a light at Border, when 10 houses away there’s a stop sign…that will do nothing but have everyone drive through a green light, and come to a stretching halt. This mitigation is unacceptable and quite frankly laughable.

As a side note, reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Mitigation
The Aesthetics section on Pg. 19 states that the impact will be significant and NO mitigation will be able to be done about it. “Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact relative to views and scenic vistas.” The mitigation for this being “long distance views of the mountains from Chase Ave would remain.” This is NOT sufficient mitigation and should not be listed as such.

Page 20 ends

homes, street lights, traffic lights, to property that is currently without a single light, is misrepresented as “less than significant.”
My biggest issue of language in this section is on Page 21, section 4.A‐6. This states that “Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any application plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including by not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan and Municipal Code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impact. This impact is considered less than significant.” And goes on to state that “No mitigation measures are required.” There is NOTHING in this plan that should be listed as “less than significant.” Additionally, this is an untrue statement as plan currently violates the City of Corona’s General Plan.

Corona’s General Plan’s goals and policies outline that the City:
‐ Support the diverse needs of Corona’s residents, including opportunities for recreation and social and spiritual activity in balance with natural and open spaces
‐ The preserve and conserve open spaces for recreation and aesthetic relief ‐ That sustain natural open spaces, hillsides and canyons ‐ That promote public places that are distinguished by their physical design, impage and effectiveness in nurturing community socialization and perception as valued places and 8 (cont.)
9 10 1112 Page 2963 of 3613
3 ‐ Provide open spaces for residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment, and provide visual relief from urban development
Everything about this proposal and the rezoning of this land is in direct conflict with the current General Plan goals noted above. The DEIR should not note that the level of significance before/after mitigation is “less than significant.” That is a blatant falsehood. I ask that this change be made for section 4.B‐6 on Page 24 as well.

This language of the project being consistent with the General Plan is referenced again on Page 154 6a and Policy

10.22.1 on page 155 and Page 239 Policy 10.9.2. Again I ask for a change in language in the document to not state that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the current General Plan. Views from the remaining trails will absolutely be affected by this proposed project. This is confirmed within the document itself on page 157 under “cumulative impacts” which notes “However the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the scenic vistas and the character and quality of the project site and surrounding areas.” I understand that Pages 409‐414 outline how the proposed project adheres the General Plan and LAFCO/SCAG rules, however I disagree and believe a lot of what is stated is a matter of opinion, and is something that I, and many residents, disagree with. Starting on page 415, the plan proposal is not consistent to:
‐ Goal 1.2 “sustain natural open spaces.”
‐ Policy 1.2.1 “policies for natural resources”
‐ Goal 1.4 “strategic growth that preservers existing viable residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts and targets new development to remaining vacant parcels that are environmentally suitable and can be supported by infrastructure and serves to enhance vitality and community livability.” ‐ Policy 1.4.8 “Require the development occur only when the public infrastructure and serves needed are available, or will be available in a reasonable amount of time.” (at best this should be tabled until the Foothill Parkway expansion is complete and we can better assess its impact on providing traffic relief for existing residents). ‐ Goal 1.7 “…meets the needs of Corona residents that are designed to enhance livability and high quality of life.” (where are the letters in support of needing/wanting these types of homes in Corona? 2 residents spoke in favor, 40+ opposed. Additionally, in the public records submitted by the Planning Commission there were no e‐mails in support of the project)
‐ Policy 1.10.2 Require that development projects be located and designed to maintain predominant typographic forms, contours and elevations in the city’s foothills and canyons in accordance with policies 10.21.2 and

10.21.3. Everything about this project violates this policy.

Mitigation of Biological Resources –
Measure Bio ‐1: Plant Life
Mitigation of plant life, as noted in the DEIR states that there are several protected plant life (Coulter’s matilija Poppy, Mariposa Lily and Chaparral Nolina), but it would be mitigated by either paying fines/fees or moving the plant life to surrounding cities. Moving plant life to cities outside of Corona is not a true mitigation to the residents here and an alternative is needed. I would like the EIR to state that the Level of Significance after mitigation will still be significant vs. “less than significant” as currently stated.

On page 250, there is a reference to try and issue mitigation within the city of Corona, but it’s not mandatory. I would like to push this council to make that mandatory. Additionally, it states that if “on‐site mitigation is proposed as an alternative the current slated mitigation (being anywhere in surrounding cities) that that plan be reviewed and approved by local and regulatory agencies. I ask that the public also be added to that review and approval process.

Bio 1 also reference wildlife, but nowhere in the document are the family of bobcat that live in Maybe Canyon or the Deer that is seen here listed. There is a vague reference to “large bodied mammals” in one sentence throughout the entire 662 pages on pages 215‐216. I would like to see additional study be done and the document to include that study specific to these mammals. (see attached document from the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife that states over 12 (cont.)
131415 Page 2964 of 3613
4 40+ Endangered or Threatened species can be found in the proposed area. Also attached are photos of the deer, bobcat and coyotes within the proposed boundaries, but not in the report) Measure Bio‐2:

On pages 202, 210, there is a deeper analysis of the vegetation and sensitive plant communities. “The project site is within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, within Temescal Canyon Area Plan, as well as designated MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey area.” And “The project site supports 3 plant communities which are considered CA Natural Diversity Database high inventory priority communicates and are considered sensitive due to their decline in the region and/or their ability to support sensitive species.” Based on these assessments, I’m even more baffled why this land is even being discussed for possible annexation and development. The document goes on to note how all of the studies were done during “Low rainfall years” so not all protected species were observed. Based on the amount of rainfall we’ve currently received, I would like another study to be done to assess if the same results are true in heavier rainfall years. If that will not be done, that an edit to the final EIR should provide support as to why the amount of rainfall does not have any bearing on the results.

Trail Access
While we understand that the main trail entrance, fire road, Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon will not be impeded by this project, there are are many more trails and access points to sections in the canyons that will be destroyed or blocked by this development. While currently on private property, those trails have been well used by hikers and mountain bikers for over 25 years. Mitigation must include access points into the remaining canyon sections/trails, other than the main Foothill entrance.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources (page 84)
The document currently states that “The proposed project would not directly convert, or otherwise result in the conversion of, any existing agricultural uses, or forest land to non‐forest use, and would not trigger significant impact.” This again is a blatant falsehood that should be corrected for the final document. The destruction of the canyons, and the countless, while unofficial, trails absolutely changes the land use from forest land to non‐forest use and will absolutely have significant impact to the hikers and mountain bikers who have used that land for at least 25 years to my personal knowledge.

Population/Housing and Employment
The document states no new jobs are directly expected to result from this development. Ms. Coletta forwarded me the Staff notes that provided some financial support for the document. I will need more time to review that and will follow up with my concerns pending that review.

Parkland/Open‐Space
This project will not produce any additional parks for city residents. Page 462 states that “school recreation facilities are often open to the public during non‐school hours. Typically elementary schools provide additional recreation opportunities to surrounding neighborhoods.” This needs to be corrected, as this is another falsehood in the DEIR.

Nearly all of Corona’s elementary schools are fenced and locked up during/after school hours.

On Page 475, the DEIR states that approximately 554 acres of parkland are needed to meet existing population levels.

This project would put us at a deficit of 161 acres and considered only “potentially significant.” It goes on to state that it’s mitigated by the fact that we have access to nearby parks in Riverside, Chino and Orange county and the developer is paying a mitigation fee (basically a penalty) as a result. Telling residents to go to another city for recreation and paying a fee is not proper mitigation and an alternative should be put together. Another example of how this is inconsistent with the city’s approved General Plan.

Water Conservation:

Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering 2.3B gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with drought‐tolerant vegetation. The City wants to create 15 (cont.)
1617 181920 21 Page 2965 of 3613
5 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 and natural watershed?
Again, I see from the document that Ms. Coletta sent, there is further detail here. I will review and provide my feedback.

At best, the information contained in that staff report on this topic should be included or referenced with a link to the report made readily available to the residents.

Overall/General Questions about process:

Page 399 ends

powers with responsibilities pertaining to regional issues. SCAG prepared the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) which serves as a basis for the preparation of SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision (2% strategy) program. Within this 2% strategy, it states that the selected 2% must produce the greatest policy achievement with the least land effected. “A site, if developed at higher density, would help best serve the mobility, livability and prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision for the region.” This project does not produce the greatest policy achievement with the lease land effected and is a falsehood to say it does. It will benefit the 300 new residents who will have a beautiful million dollar home, not to the benefit of the other 145k+ residents.

I am imploring you to:

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 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
~ 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/ 21 (cont.)
2223 Page 2966 of 3613
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 SALK AVENUE - SUITE 250
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PHONE: (760)431-9440 FAX: (760)431-5901
URL: www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2016-SLI-0537 April 13, 2016 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2016-E-00784
Project Name: Skyline Trail
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ). et seq.

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are required et seq. to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
24 Page 2967 of 3613
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may require et seq. development of an eagle conservation plan
(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment
2 24
(cont.)

Page 2968 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
1 Official Species List
Provided by:

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 SALK AVENUE - SUITE 250
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(760) 431-9440
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2016-SLI-0537
Event Code: 08ECAR00-2016-E-00784
Project Type: LAND - CLEARING
Project Name: Skyline Trail
Project Description: Million $$$ Homes in Corona CA
PLEASE SEND BEFORE MAY 9th 2016, EIR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2969 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
2 Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-117.60872840881348 33.84988869610126, - 117.60705471038818 33.84921151092587, -117.60636806488037 33.84846303685511, - 117.6038360595703 33.84693042663045, -117.60130405426024 33.844292846990825, - 117.59984493255615 33.84336611049047, -117.60143280029298 33.84211856471391, - 117.60254859924315 33.84176211971806, -117.60267734527586 33.84144131795057, - 117.60289192199707 33.83883921466955, -117.60164737701416 33.83851840192949, - 117.60211944580078 33.83687867356177, -117.60422229766846 33.836914320165164, - 117.60478019714355 33.83766289540176, -117.6075267791748 33.838803568869004, - 117.61327743530275 33.839837291048234, -117.62083053588867 33.845433431962164, - 117.62323379516602 33.84636014604009, -117.62447834014893 33.84739377680723, - 117.6263666152954 33.847999692477444, -117.6247787475586 33.848926378719746, - 117.62104511260985 33.850245107195285, -117.62048721313478 33.84931843525782, - 117.61950016021729 33.84881945389711, -117.61443614959715 33.84864124556198, - 117.6101016998291 33.850815361852796, -117.60872840881348 33.84988869610126))) United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2970 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
3 Project Counties: Riverside, CA
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2971 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
4 Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 11 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)
arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus)
Population: Entire
Endangered Final designated
Birds
Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica)
Population: Entire
Threatened Final designated
Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus)
Population: Entire
Endangered Final designated
Southwestern Willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
Population: Entire
Endangered Final designated
Crustaceans
San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
sandiegonensis)
Endangered Final designated
Fishes
Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus
santaanae)
Threatened Final designated
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2972 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
5 Population: 3 CA river basins
Flowering Plants
Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus
brauntonii)
Endangered Final designated
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia
pumila)
Endangered Final designated
Santa Monica Mountains dudleya
(Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia)
Threatened
Insects
Quino Checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha quino (=e. e.
wrighti))
Population: Entire
Endangered Final designated
Mammals
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
stephensi)
Population: Entire
Endangered
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2973 of 3613 ends

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/13/2016 10:01 AM
6 Critical habitats that lie within your project area
The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area.

Birds Critical Habitat Type
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
Population: Entire
Final designated
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Skyline Trail
24 (cont.)

Page 2974 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2975 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2976 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2977 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2978 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2979 of 3613 ends

24 (cont.)

Page 2980 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 70
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 70
Response to Comment 70-1. 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 70-2 through 70-24.

Response to Comment 70-2. With regard to traffic and roadway infrastructure, including roadway infrastructure currently in the works, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to other infrastructure, please see Response to Comment 9-10 (Letter 10, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Elaine Hicks).

Response to Comment 70-3. With regard to open space and forestry resources, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space”, Response to Comment 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura BrennanMayhugh), and Response to Comment 45-8 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson). As indicated therein, the project would be consistent with applicable City of Corona General Plan open space policies and would result in less than significant impacts to open space and forestry resources.

With regard to parks, as indicated on pages 4.L-15 through 4.L-18 of the Draft EIR, while the project does not proposed the on-site parkland required to meet project demand, Mitigation Measure PS-5 requires project compliance with City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees, which requires the dedication of on-site parkland, payment of in-lieu fees for the provision of such parkland elsewhere, or a combination of the two to provide the parkland required to serve project residents. As indicates on pages 4.L-16 and 4.L-26, with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measure, project park impacts would be less than significant.

With regard to traffic, as indicated on pages 4.M-42 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in significant impacts at four intersections, Intersections 3 (Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue, if Foothill Parkway is not constructed prior to project opening), 4, (Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue), 10 (Elysia Street/Foothill Parkway), and 11 (Trudy Way/Foothill Parkway), Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require a traffic signal at Paseo Grande/Ontario Avenue only if Foothill Parkway is not constructed and open prior to project opening; Mitigation Measures TR-2 through TR-4 require new traffic signals prior to project opening at Intersections 4 (Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue), 10 (Elysia Street/Foothill Parkway), and 11 (Trudy Way/Foothill Parkway), and Mitigation Measure TR-5 requiring the roadway improvement of Paseo Grande between Ontario Avenue and Green River to be improved to a four lane secondary roadway would only be required if Foothill Parkway was not constructed and open prior to project opening. As indicated on page 4.M-44, the project impacts at these intersections and roadway segment would be reduced to less than significant levels City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-328

Page 2981 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
with implementation of the prescribed mitigation. Payment of fees/fines is not identified as mitigation for traffic impacts. It should be noted that the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project was completed in late 2016 and the roadway is currently operational. Therefore, Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-5 are no longer necessary for the project as the impacts have been reduced to less than significant with the opening of Foothill Parkway.

With regard to infrastructure, as indicated on pages 4.N-34 through 4.N-48, the project could result in significant water, wastewater, and solid waste infrastructure impacts without proper mitigation, and less than significant storm drainage infrastructure impacts. Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-5 are requiring: 1) payment of the required CDWP water and sewer connection fees, 2) a copy of receipt or proof of contract that the construction contractor shall contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler for recycled waste disposal services, 3) on-site waste separation facilities during construction, and 4) adherence to the City’s waste diversion program which diverts 75 percent of all waste away from landfills. As indicated on page 4.N-61, project infrastructure impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measures. Payment of fines is not identified as mitigation, and while payment of fees is identified as mitigation, these fees would provide the infrastructure improvements required to serve the project.

All mitigation prescribed in the Draft EIR is sufficient under CEQA, including the payment of adopted impact fees designed specifically to mitigate the impacts of new development, and the commenter’s contention otherwise is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Response to Comment 70-4. The Draft EIR reports a total of 21 Federal or State-listed Endangered species, seven plant species and 14 wildlife species, have been recorded for the general area surrounding the project site. None of these have been recorded from the project site. L&L Environmental, Inc. conducted additional focused botanical surveys in 2016 to gather more data and provide a more thorough evaluation. Surveys were conducted between April and August 2016 to ensure surveys encompassed the blooming periods for potential sensitive plants and movement or activity periods for wildlife. The biologists that conducted the updated surveys were not previously associated with the project and have over 35 years of combined biological survey and monitoring experience in southern California. The biologists conducting the surveys hold permits to survey for multiple endangered species, including insects, birds, and amphibians.

The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) considers both observed species and species with a probability of occurrence that were not directly observed or not observed via sign (footprints, scat, etc.), but are known in the area or might be expected in the area due to habitat types and elevation, etc.

Certain animals known to frequent the area at night or that avoid human interaction can be viewed by motion detection cameras and these include wildlife that are common in hillside communities including deer, skunks, opossums, raccoons, coyotes, etc. These species have not reached listing status, and are therefore, not considered sensitive species that require protection under CEQA. Measures to reduce impacts to these species are generally managed during preconstruction clearing actions where monitors prevent direct impacts via flushing actions which move the wildlife out of the of the active construction area. The Updated Biological Assessment included the following mitigation measure, providing protection for wildlife species during construction.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-329

Page 2982 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14. A qualified biologist shall monitor clearing and grubbing activities as they impact vegetation on the site. A qualified biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species.

If wildlife is discovered, the qualified biologist shall move it out of harm’s way or allow it to move safely out of the work area prior to initiation of project activities.

Response to Comment 70-5. Please see: Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) regarding project impacts to trails and trail access; Response to Comments 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) regarding project aesthetics impacts; and Response to Comment 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman) regarding project biological resources impacts.

Response to Comment 70-6. With regard to project impacts to police protection services and schools, please see Responses to Comments 9-12 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Michelle Arnold) and 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin), respectively. With regard to project impacts to fire protection services, fire protection is addressed in Section 4.L, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, with supporting data provided in Appendix J, Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information. As indicated on page 4.L-12 through 4.L-14, with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measures, project impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant.

With regard specifically to emergency response times, these are addressed in Section 4.L, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, with supporting data provided in Appendix J, Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information. As indicated on page 4.L-12, the project site is located within 2.75 miles or less of three existing City fire stations, fire protection response times from these stations to the project site are within the CFD’s response time goals for the first in responder of six minutes, 90 percent of the time. As indicated on page 4.L-14, the project site is located within 4.7 miles of the City’s main police station, police response times to the project site are within the CPD’s five minute response time goal. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.M-44, with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, and with implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measures, project traffic impacts would be less than significant. It can thus be reasonably concluded that project impacts to police and fire emergency response times to other properties in the City would also be less than significant.

Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.L-14, it is anticipated that with the recent completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension Project, traffic flow and access in the vicinity of the project site would improve.

Response to Comment 70-7. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard” (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-330

Page 2983 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 70-8. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 70-9. The commenter suggests that the scope of intersections evaluated in Section

4.M, Transportation, of the Draft EIR is inappropriate, and also that the proposed traffic mitigation would not alleviate the impacts indicated at two locations along Ontario Avenue (at Border Avenue and at Paseo Grande) as stated in the analysis, but offers no evidence to support this statement, other than anecdotal statements. The TIA prepared for the proposed project was done so in accordance with accepted industry standards for traffic impact analysis and using the City’s accepted traffic model. Furthermore, the City’s Traffic Engineering Section reviewed and approved the project TIA, and thus supports the analysis and conclusions contained therein and in Section 4.M of the Draft EIR. Despite the suggestions provided by the commenter, the analysis contained in the TIA and Draft EIR reflects accepted methodology for evaluating traffic impacts and provides substantial evidence to support the conclusions contained therein.

Response to Comment 70-10. With regard to project impacts on views and scenic vistas, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

The comment that the quote from the Draft EIR “long distance views of the mountains from Chase Avenue would remain” does not represent sufficient mitigation, is not characterized as mitigation in the Draft EIR. “Rather, this quote is from the impact summary for scenic resources on page 4.A-15 of the Draft EIR which states in full:
“Although the proposed project would alter the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, long-distance views of the mountains from Chase Avenue would remain. There are no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings designated in the area that would be affected by the project. Nonetheless, due to the substantial modification of on-site topography and introduction of urban uses into an existing undeveloped area, impacts to scenic resources are considered significant and unavoidable.

Hence, just as the aesthetics analysis in the Draft EIR concludes on page 4.A-14 project impacts on views and scenic vistas would be significant and unavoidable, so does the analysis on page 4.A-15 with regard to scenic resources. The statement above that “…long-distance views of the mountains from Chase Avenue would remain” simply describes what one would see from one of the amazed vantage points (e.g., Chase Drive which is a designated scenic highway), joins other mitigating factors such as that identified on pages 4.A-14 and 4.A-15 of the analysis where it is stated “While the project would permanently alter the foreground views of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, the background views of the Santa Ana Mountains would remain following project implementation. Still, the aesthetics analysis fully divulges the aesthetics impacts of the project, such as on page 4.A-15 where it is stated “Upon completion, however, existing views of undeveloped land would be replaced with views of single-family residents. In accordance with CEQA, and consistent with the primary purpose of an EIR which is to provide for an informed decision about the project by the decision-makers, the analysis divulges both in what respects impacts would occur and in what respects impacts would not occur. In the current case, significant unavoidable impacts would occur from close-in but not far-off vantage points.

Response to Comment 70-11. Please see Response to Comment 65-3 (Letter 65, Dwight Woodward).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-331

Page 2984 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 70-12. With regard to project consistency with applicable City of Corona General Plan aesthetics goals and policies, this is evaluated in Section 4.A, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. The conclusion referenced in the comment from page 4.A-22 of the Draft EIR (e.g., “Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Municipal Code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetics impact”) is supported by analysis on pages 4.A-23 through 4.A25. This includes Table 4.A-1, General Plan Consistency analysis, which evaluates project consistency with each of the applicable aesthetics goals and policies from the City of Corona General Plan. While this represents substantial evidence in the record, the commenter’s contention that the above conclusion is an untrue statement is not supported by substantial evidence.

With regard to project consistency with applicable City of Corona open space goals and policies (e.g., the goals and policies listed in the comment), please see Response to Comment 45-8 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson). As indicated therein, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan open space goals and policies.

With regard to project consistency with applicable City of Corona General Plan land use goals, policies and zoning, this is evaluated in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on page 4.I-19, the project would be consistent with all applicable City General Plan land use goals and policies; this conclusion is supported by Table 4.I-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, which discusses project consistency with each applicable City General Plan land goal and policy. The discussion represents substantial evidence in the record that the project is consistent with applicable City General Plan land use goals and policies, and with City zoning, and the commenter’s contention otherwise is not supported by substantial evidence. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for additional discussion.

Response to Comment 70-13. With regard to project consistency with City General Plan Policy 10..22.1, as indicated in the consistency analysis on page 4.A-23, the policy calls for creating unobstructed view corridors or viewsheds of the San Bernardino, Santa Ana and San Gabriel Mountains, and the Chino and La Sierra Hills, from public spaces such parks and trails, while the consistency analysis states:
“While the project would modify the visual character of the project site and alter the viewshed in the project area, particularly from public trails such as the Skyline Trail, long-distance views of scenic resources such as the San Bernardino, Santa Ana, and San Gabriel Mountains, as well as the Chino and La Sierra Hills, would not be substantially affected. As such, despite a significant impact related to alteration of the project site, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.” The project would not obstruct view corridors of viewsheds of the referenced mountains and hills from the area’s trails, and thus the project is consistent with Policy 10.22.1.

With regard to project consistency with City General Plan Policy 10.9.2, as indicated on page 4.C-39 of the Draft EIR and 4.C-64 of the RDEIR, this policy applies to biological resources, appearing in the Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan under Biological Resources and meant to protect biological resources, and does not apply to aesthetics.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-332

Page 2985 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The commenter appears to take the position that any change from the existing undeveloped condition of the project site as seen from the area’s trails would make the project inconsistent with the above policies, but that is not what the above policies say. Furthermore, the commenter appears to take the position here and in other comments in the letter that any change in the visual environment represents a significant impact, but as indicated in Significance Thresholds 1 through 3 (dealing with views, scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character) on page 4.A-12 of the Draft EIR, such changes need to be “substantial”. In the current case, the analysis acknowledges that viewpoints within close proximity of the project site would be significantly and unavoidably affected, but also that longer-range viewpoints, and views of the entire viewshed, would not be significantly affected. In addition, the commenter appears to conflate policies and environmental issues here and in other comments in this letter, applying policies to environmental issues that they are not intended to address (for example, applying Policy 10.9.2 to aesthetics when it is actually applies to biological resources); this is inappropriate and not what the City’s General Plan intends. Finally, the commenter often quotes portions of General Plan goals and policies in lieu of the entirety of the goal and/or policy text, taking the citations out of context (for example in Comments 70-12 and 70-14); the entirety of the goals and policies need to be considered (and are considered in the General Plan Consistency analysis tables in the Draft EIR).

Response to Comment 70-14. The comment expressing disagreement with the General Plan land use goal and policy consistency conclusions reached in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR evaluates project consistency with each of the referenced land use goals and policies in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, in Table 4.I-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated therein, and as supported by the analysis in the “Evaluation of Project Consistency column of Table 4.I-2, the project would be consistent with each of the referenced goals and policies.

With regard specifically to the comment under Policy 1.4.8 that the project should be tabled until the Foothill Parkway expansion is complete and we can better assess its impact on providing traffic relief for existing residents, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the project both with and without completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension Project. Please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) for further discussion.

With regard specifically to the comment under Goal 1.7 asking where the letters are in support of needing/wanting the types of homes proposed in the City, Goal 1.7 does not require letters in support. Goal

1.7 states: “Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing and supporting uses to meet the needs of Corona’s residents that are designed to enhance livability and a high quality of life. As indicated in the consistency analysis for this goal on page 4.I-22 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide additional single-family housing units within the City that would help the City meet its current and future RHNA needs, and would provide various improvements such as new roads, open space areas, landscaping and other features intended to enhance livability of on-site residents and provide a high quality of life. This is supported by the analysis in Section 4.K, Population, Housing and Employment, which indicates on page

4.K-5 that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) indicates that, in 2012, among the existing housing needs for residents in the City was 308 above moderate income housing units, and that the project would help meet the demand for such units.

Response to Comment 70-15. The mitigation measure BIO-1 in the original Draft EIR has been replaced by BIO-MM2 in the recirculated Biological Resources section in the RDEIR for plant species. Mitigation Measure City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-333

Page 2986 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
BIO-MM2 provides that plant salvage and translocation will be onsite wherever possible. However, when onsite suitable habitat is no longer available, offsite conservation/preservation areas will be utilized, with a preference given to locations closest to the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2. Mitigation shall be provided for impacts to Coulter’s matilija poppy, intermediate mariposa lily, and chaparral nolina.
• Impacts shall be minimized and avoided to the extent feasible. Coulter’s matilija poppy and intermediate mariposa lily plants within the development footprint shall be salvaged for use in the project area, avoidance area, or reuse in local restoration projects. In addition, a qualified botanist shall collect seeds from plants within the grading impact area during the spring or summer before grading commencement.
• Impacts to chaparral nolina shall be mitigated through translocation and seed collection with propagation to an on-site or off‐site preserved property acceptable to the City. The property shall be composed of habitat characteristics suitable to support chaparral nolina, including but not limited to: appropriate soils, elevation, and supporting chaparral or coastal sage scrub (or a combination thereof) habitat. The property shall be conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-due diligence approved local conservation entity to protect chaparral nolina on the property in perpetuity. Alternatively, the land may be transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. A management fund shall be established by the Applicant and will consist of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, signage replacement and repair, law enforcement measures, long-term management reporting (as described below), and other actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity. A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted by the Applicant and approved by the City to determine the management needs and costs described above, which then will be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the fund. This management fund shall be held and managed by a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. To protect the mitigation area(s), the Applicant shall place appropriate signage around the perimeter of each site. Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except maintenance of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials.

Prior to any ground disturbance, the Applicant shall prepare a Chaparral Nolina Planting Plan (Plan) for chaparral nolina. The Plan shall require a replacement ratio of 1:1 by area, and ensure a minimum 90 percent survivorship at the end of a five-year monitoring period, which shall be verified by the monitoring biologist (minimum qualifications of the monitoring biologist are specified below). At a minimum, the five-year plan shall include the following information:

1. a description of the existing conditions of the receiver site(s) characterizing the suitability of the site(s) for chaparral nolina, and documenting the acreage of the site,

2. a description of how the site will be preserved in perpetuity, e.g., conservation easement, deed restriction, etc., and the name of the CDFW-approved due diligence entity that will hold the easement/deed restriction, etc.,
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-334

Page 2987 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

3. qualifications of the monitoring biologist. At a minimum the monitoring biologist will possess a minimum of five-year's experience conducting habitat restoration projects in coastal sage scrub and/or chaparral habitat in Riverside County, California,

4. receiver site preparation for transplanting,

5. goals for success,

6. schedule,

7. propagation techniques,

8. transplant and seedling installation methods,

9. plant spacing,

10. performance criteria for success, including provision for control of non-native and invasive species,

11. monitoring and reporting procedures for each of the five years of the monitoring period,

12. adaptive management strategies, including a contingency plan should the site fail to meet the specified success criteria, and

13. maintenance requirements that will be reviewed and approved by the City. The Plan shall also ensure a mixture of both male and female plants.

Response to Comment 70-16. See Response to Comment 3-2, above. Updated focused botanical surveys were conducted during the 2016 survey season to supplement previous work and provide current data. The 2016 rainfall year was better than previous years’ surveys. Rainfall was more than any of the previous three years individually and should have allowed most species to bloom. 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 Assessment and the RDEIR).

Response to Comment 70-17. 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). Based on those responses, no additional mitigation is required.

Response to Comment 70-18. The Draft EIR evaluated project impacts to forest land in Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. As indicated on page 4.O-7, no land designated as “Forest Land” exists within the project boundaries (e.g., the project site is currently zoned Rural Residential by Riverside County), and therefore implementation of the project would not directly convert forest land to non-forest use. As further indicated on page 4.O-7, although the Forest Land portions of the CNF are located to the south and west of the project site, implementation of the project would not directly affect any forest land or forestry resources. While that statement that the project site is not located in the CNF is in error, and has been corrected in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR, the statements on page 4.O-7 that the project would not affect any forest land or forestry resources are still correct. As indicated in the Land Use Zones map in the 2005 Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, the Forest Service identifies the project site and greater annexation area as “Non-Forest System Land”.

Furthermore, the project site and greater annexation area contain primarily chaparral and sage scrub habitat as indicated in Figure 4.C-1, rather than forest, and do not contain timberlands. Therefore, as indicated on City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-335

Page 2988 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
page 4.O-7, project impacts to forestry resources would be less than significant.

With regard to project impacts to trails, 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).

Response to Comment 70-19: Please see Response to Comment 67-18 (Letter 67, Courtney Kasey).

Response to Comment 70-20. With regard to the impacts of the project on parks, and the use of park impact fee payments to mitigate these impacts, please see Response to Comments 1-9 under “Proposed OnSite Park and Recreation Facilities (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 45-7 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson).

With regard to the comment that the Draft EIR incorrectly states that school recreation facilities are open to the public during non-school hours: (1) as indicated in the quote, the statement is not an absolute – it says such facilities are “often” and “typically open to the public, and the comment itself acknowledges this in stating that “nearly” all of Corona’s schools are fenced and locked during/after school hours; (2) the quote is from the Environmental Setting subsection of Section 4.L-, Public Services, of the Draft EIR and is not used as a mitigating factor in the parks impact analysis later in the section; and (3) as indicated on pages 4.L-25 and

4.L-26 of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-5, requiring compliance with City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees, would fully mitigate project parks impacts. Therefore, no correction of this statement is required.

With regard to the comment that the project would put the City at a park deficit of 161 acres, this is incorrect. As indicated on pages 4.L-16 and 4.L-17 of the Draft EIR:
“Therefore, an estimated total of approximately 554 acres of parklands are needed within the City to accommodate the City’s existing population of 158,391. Thus, this represents a parkland deficit of 161 acres. Since the Project would contribute new residents that would utilize City parks, impacts on City parks and recreational services are considered to be a potentially significant impact.” Per the above, the 161 acre park deficit is an existing deficit, not a deficit caused by the project.

Furthermore, the project and the EIR are not responsible for mitigating this existing deficit, but rather are responsible only for mitigating the potential increase in this deficit which would be done with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-5.

With regard to the portion of the comment characterizing the payment of in-lieu park fees under Mitigation Measure PS-5 as a “penalty” (basically, as a fine) is an incorrect characterization. The payment of in-lieu park fees under City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35 (Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees) is a method the City of Corona has made available to new development projects to provide parkland to serve their future residents in cases where insufficient parkland is dedicated on-site to meet this demand. The intent of Chapter 16.35 is that the City use the fees collected to develop parkland elsewhere in the City, preferably within relatively close of the proposed development, to serve that proposed development, and thereby avoid having existing residents subsidize new park development necessitate by growth in the City.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-336

Page 2989 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 70-21. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel). The commenter makes reference to a document provided by City staff, but no document regarding this issue is attached. Thus no further response may be provided in this regard.

Response to Comment 70-22. The comment both incorrectly quotes the referenced passage and takes the quote out of context. The quote is from page 4.I-6 of the Draft EIR, in the Regulatory Setting subsection of Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, under SCAG Compass Blueprint Growth Vision. The entire paragraph reads as follows:
“As part of the visioning effort, the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy provides guidance for how and where SCAG can implement the Growth Vision for Southern California’s future. It calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation trends on only 2% of the land area of the region. Directing the changes to the selected 2% of the land identified produces the greatest policy achievement for the least land affected. The Growth Visioning effort encourages clustering/densification of job growth and population activity in proximity to certain transportation facilities. As indicated on the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas map for the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the City of Corona and its SOI are located within a Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Area. As such, the site is within a key target area that, if developed at higher density, would help best serve the mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision for the region. In anticipation of population growth in Western Riverside County, the City of Corona has initiated several Compass Blueprint projects, including the Metrolink Station Area Plan, Downtown Revitalization Plan, and the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program (WRCOG). The applicable principles and policies of the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision relevant to the project and an analysis of the project’s consistency with these principles and policies are provided below under the subheading Analysis of Project Impacts.” As indicated above, City of Corona and its Sphere of Influence (within which the project site is located) are located within a Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Area, and “As such, the site is within a key target area that, if developed at a higher density, would help best serve the mobility, livability, property and sustainability goals of the Growth Vision for the region.” Another words, the project site is located in an area planned for urban development, near the urban core rather than in rural areas of the County, within close proximity to regional transportation facilities, and concentrating development in this area would reduce the traffic, air emissions, energy consumption, and other environmental effects that would otherwise occur if development were to occur in rural areas of the County where people would need to travel long distances for work, services and recreation.

Response to Comment 70-23. The comments requesting that the applications for the project be rejected 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 70-24. As discussed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR, additional surveys were conducted at the project site in 2016, which served, in part, as the basis for the updated biological resources analysis contained in the RDEIR and in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment contained in RDEIR Appendix A. The additional analysis provided in the RDEIR also includes an updated analysis of impacts to sensitive species, including special-status species such as those identified in the comments. However, as concluded in the RDEIR, impacts to such resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-337

Page 2990 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:27 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR One more
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:22 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Hello ‐
One additional amendment I’d like to see in the final EIR that I forgot to mention below, is within the traffic analysis. As highlighted, I do not believe that the traffic analysis was comprehensive enough, nor is the mitigation recommended (2 traffic lights) anywhere near sufficient. In a revised analysis and mitigation, the on/off ramps need to be evaluated.

There are more mornings than not, that it takes me 30‐60 minutes to get ON the freeway and the line to get off at Green River during the pm drive time is often backed up more than a mile. Even if traffic flow could be alleviated to get through town…what are the mitigation offerings to the freeway entrances/exits? Thank you in advance for reviewing my many questions/concerns. I look forward to hearing back from you. ~ Courtney Kasey
From: Courtney Kasey
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:21 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darrell Talbert' <[email protected]>
Subject: Skyline Heights Project ‐ Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Hello –
As promised at the end of my questions e‐mail sent 4/12, the following summarizes, and then goes into detail, where I believe the DEIR is flawed or needs to be amended.

LETTER 71
2 (cont.)
1

Page 2991 of 3613 ends

2 o While some road projects are in the works, we are not confident that this will alleviate the situation or will we just be in the same position we are now once the new residents are here. ‐ Mitigation
o There is insufficient mitigation throughout the document – from lack of open space ratios, to traffic infrastructure, to loss of forest and views. Paying a fee/fine will not benefit the residents of my city. ‐ Impact to Wildlife
o There are over 40 endangered species in the area proposed for development. One of the residents showed a photo slide show of countless animals that never even made the EIR, which undermines the validity and thoroughness of the research conducted.
‐ Impact to the Trail System
o While 2 main hiking trails will not be impacted (Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon) the rest most certainly will.

Specifically, here are my issues/concerns with the 662 page DEIR where I believe data is lacking, questionable or flat out false and should be amended:

Traffic/Transportation

Page 510 ends

Mitigation
2 (cont.) Page 2992 of 3613
3 The Aesthetics section on Pg. 19 states that the impact will be significant and NO mitigation will be able to be done about it. “Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact relative to views and scenic vistas.” The mitigation for this being “long distance views of the mountains from Chase Ave would remain.” This is NOT sufficient mitigation and should not be listed as such.

Page 20 ends

Corona’s General Plan’s goals and policies outline that the City:
‐ Support the diverse needs of Corona’s residents, including opportunities for recreation and social and spiritual activity in balance with natural and open spaces
‐ The preserve and conserve open spaces for recreation and aesthetic relief ‐ That sustain natural open spaces, hillsides and canyons ‐ That promote public places that are distinguished by their physical design, impage and effectiveness in nurturing community socialization and perception as valued places and ‐ Provide open spaces for residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment, and provide visual relief from urban development
Everything about this proposal and the rezoning of this land is in direct conflict with the current General Plan goals noted above. The DEIR should not note that the level of significance before/after mitigation is “less than significant.” That is a blatant falsehood. I ask that this change be made for section 4.B‐6 on Page 24 as well.

This language of the project being consistent with the General Plan is referenced again on Page 154 6a and Policy

10.22.1 on page 155 and Page 239 Policy 10.9.2. Again I ask for a change in language in the document to not state that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the current General Plan. Views from the remaining trails will absolutely be affected by this proposed project. This is confirmed within the document itself on page 157 under “cumulative impacts” which notes “However the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the scenic vistas and the character and quality of the project site and surrounding areas.” I understand that Pages 409‐414 outline how the proposed project adheres the General Plan and LAFCO/SCAG rules, however I disagree and believe a lot of what is stated is a matter of opinion, and is something that I, and many residents, disagree with. Starting on page 415, the plan proposal is not consistent to:
‐ Goal 1.2 “sustain natural open spaces.”
‐ Policy 1.2.1 “policies for natural resources”
‐ Goal 1.4 “strategic growth that preservers existing viable residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts and targets new development to remaining vacant parcels that are environmentally suitable and can be supported by infrastructure and serves to enhance vitality and community livability.” ‐ Policy 1.4.8 “Require the development occur only when the public infrastructure and serves needed are available, or will be available in a reasonable amount of time.” (at best this should be tabled until the Foothill Parkway expansion is complete and we can better assess its impact on providing traffic relief for existing residents). ‐ Goal 1.7 “…meets the needs of Corona residents that are designed to enhance livability and high quality of life.” (where are the letters in support of needing/wanting these types of homes in Corona? 2 residents spoke in favor, 40+ opposed. Additionally, in the public records submitted by the Planning Commission there were no e‐mails in support of the project)
2 (cont.) Page 2993 of 3613
4 ‐ Policy 1.10.2 Require that development projects be located and designed to maintain predominant typographic forms, contours and elevations in the city’s foothills and canyons in accordance with policies 10.21.2 and

10.21.3. Everything about this project violates this policy.

Bio 1 also reference wildlife, but nowhere in the document are the family of bobcat that live in Maybe Canyon or the Deer that is seen here listed. There is a vague reference to “large bodied mammals” in one sentence throughout the entire 662 pages on pages 215‐216. I would like to see additional study be done and the document to include that study specific to these mammals. (see attached document from the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife that states over 40+ Endangered or Threatened species can be found in the proposed area. Also attached are photos of the deer, bobcat and coyotes within the proposed boundaries, but not in the report) Measure Bio‐2:

Population/Housing and Employment
2 (cont.) Page 2994 of 3613
5 The document states no new jobs are directly expected to result from this development. Ms. Coletta forwarded me the Staff notes that provided some financial support for the document. I will need more time to review that and will follow up with my concerns pending that review.

Nearly all of Corona’s elementary schools are fenced and locked up during/after school hours.

On Page 475, the DEIR states that approximately 554 acres of parkland are needed to meet existing population levels.

Water Conservation:

Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering 2.3B gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with drought‐tolerant 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 and natural watershed?
Again, I see from the document that Ms. Coletta sent, there is further detail here. I will review and provide my feedback.

At best, the information contained in that staff report on this topic should be included or referenced with a link to the report made readily available to the residents.

Overall/General Questions about process:

Page 399 ends

I am imploring you to:

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. 2 (cont.) Page 2995 of 3613
6 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
~ 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/ 2 (cont.) Page 2996 of 3613

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 71
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 71
Response 71-1: Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 77-6 (Letter 77, Wilson Tsing). The traffic analysis is adequate as written, and no amendment of the analysis is required.

Response to Comment 71-2. Please see Responses to Comments 70-1 through 70-23 (Letter 70, Courtney Kasey).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-344

Page 2997 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:29 AM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Hello Mayor
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Joanne Coletta; Darrell Talbert
Subject: FW: Hello Mayor
Message sent to Mayor.

From: carlos quintero [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Hello Mayor
My name is Carlos and I'm a against the idea of building homes above skyline hiking trail.

Skyline hiking trail may just look like a piece of land but to most people who go there they don't see it that way, they see skyline as a place for family hiking spot, hiking with your dog, a place to train, bike riding, explore nature, and most people go there to see and enjoy the view of their City Corona. Skyline is a partial area of what corona use to look like an untainted place without concrete and metal, it is a momento from corona to us to remember the life in nature that corona still has.

When I was little I was raised on an island where history was made and landmarks were kept the same. they are momentos which brought people from different countries to visit these landmarks. Till this day the island is remembered for its land marks so should corona.

Someone once told me that they come to corona to get away from the violence and trouble because corona is quiet and calm and the way I see it you are slowly planning trouble for the future Corona.

LETTER 72
1

Page 2998 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 72
Carlos Quintero
[email protected]
Response to Letter 72
Response to Comment 72-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

With regard to the comment concerning the Skyline hiking trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District.

With regard to the comment expressing a desire to keep the project site in open space, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-346

Page 2999 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:49 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Hiking Trail
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: jim brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 8:49 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Skyline Hiking Trail
TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] C: [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 James Brooks and I am a resident of Lake Elsinore, California. I travel two and three times a week to the Skyline Trails to walk as a form of exercising. I really enjoy walking there compared to other areas. I am writing as a concerned person to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the postponed 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, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts, like myself, including many of our local high school cross-country teams, who wish to conserve access to natural open areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest for exercise and that beautiful natural escape, which can only build a healthier and more holistic community.
….Hiker’s Personal Anecdote:

LETTER 73
1

Page 3000 of 3613 ends

2 I personally have [ADD PERSONAL ANECDOTE HERE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SKYLINE or REASONS TO SUPPORT ACCESS] 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. Through all the daily stresses of working, studying, commuting and living through the congestion of our roads and freeways, our community members and many nature enthusiasts and hiking groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected. We as a community 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. ….Dr. Trevizo’s personal anecdote:
“ “I personally have run, trained, mountain-biked, and hiked up, over and around Skyline at least a 1000 times over the last 22 years. Nothing is greater than to escape from our regimented lives of work, daily stresses and the concrete congestion of streets and freeways, than to explore the natural wonders that God gave us; to reflect, to pray, to breathe, to wonder, and to find one’s own harmony in ones’ self. And better yet, to share this with your kids, family or friends is what’s even more amazing! My kids’ fondest memories are their adventures on Skyline, from the natural watershed streams that harbor the California Orange-bellied Newt, to Tin Mine Canyon nature trail and its mysteries, to the small but challenging and adventurous rope course, to side trails to experience natural wild life including deer, bobcat and foxes or the beautiful King snake and the smallest Horned Toad lizard. Their lives have been forever changed and permanently touched by the awe and wonder of God’s creation.

Once on the top of Skyline, the view is awe inspiring and breath-taking. From here, there is a 360 degree view that encompasses Catalina Island, Orange County to L.A., Big Bear and the Inland Empire itself! There is no other substitute to having this so close, in our own backyard and its simple accessibility; this can only be viewed as positive, and makes for all of us a more ‘whole’ community. Besides taking away a large part of the accessible walking Flats, a proposal to move parking an additional mile away will greatly impede many older, semi-handicapped and younger people access to Skyline Trail. We as a whole could not be more fortunate or thankful, but we must protect this opportunity and conserve these open spaces, including access to all the natural areas that is afforded to us by our Cleveland National Forest. We as a community implore you to reject the applications and support our goals towards healthier lifestyles and a healthier community. I now ask simply, that you be like us, stand by us and vote the right decision with us!” “ Thank you so much for your earnest time and consideration,

Sincerely,

James Brooks

2 3

Page 3001 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 73
James Brooks
[email protected]
Response to Letter 73
Responses to Comments 73-1 through 73-3. With regard to the request to reject the project entitlements, and the comments concerning trails and trail access, 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).

With regard to project impacts to biological resources, please see Response to Comment 32-1 (Letter 32, K.

Zimmerman).

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

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-349

Page 3002 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:39 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elaine Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Eugene Montanez
Subject: Re: Skyline
Thank you for such a quick response. Yes, I came here in 1972 and Border was on the border. When I’ve hiked Tin Mine there was a forestry person there who said that he gave a guided hike once a month . . . though I know thats not Skyline, its part of the beautiful natural landscape that used to be Corona. I realize that nothing is being done TO Skyline, but more homes in the area crowd out the “return to nature” aspect of it. And it is wonderful that there are so many jobs here since we both remember that other than Gaines and Emerson’s, there wasn’t much to choose from to shop ‐ or to go out to eat. I guess I see the apartments going in on North Main and Dos Lagos and visualize the number of commuters who don’t work here, further clogging the freeways ‐ and then at least another development at Foothill and the 15 whose cars will clog Foothill or the 15. I’m ignorant as to which is county and which aren’t. Thank you for the work you do to try and keep Corona a community that is pleasant to be in.

On Apr 12, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks
> There is a lot of misinformation, NOTHING is being done to Skyline, in > fact when the existing homes went in, I fought to have parking > approved there, since it was supposed to be a gated community, and NOT > ONE PERSON was there to ask or push, nor any support from the planning > commission or council at the time.
>
> There are VERY few homes being approved or in the pipeline in Corona, > we tried to annex South of town to slow down the growth there. Pretty > much anything we have left to build was approved or nearly so before > the recession.
>
> The majority of homes are outside the city limits, and we have no > control over them. If someone wanted to stop traffic, that is a much LETTER 74
1 2

Page 3003 of 3613 ends

2 > larger issue, but not a Corona one, we are pretty well done here. > Part of the traffic issue is that most people are now working, vs. a > few years ago. I have worked to bring in more high paying jobs into > Corona. Do you know how many people now work in Corona? > Well over 54,000 people. I¹m not sure if you saw my video series last > year, highlighting businesses, but virtually every one of them has > jobs paying over $100,000. And we have the largest Fortune 500 company > headquartered in the IE, in Corona, Monster Energy, who has over 2,000 > employees alone.
>
> I¹m doing my best. But always willing to listen. My family came in > 1964, there were 13,000 people then, I would have been fine, when > should we have stopped building? You¹ve been here awhile tooŠ. >
> P.S. The US Forest Service does NOT consider a trail nor does it do > anything to support it.
>
>
> Eugene Montanez
> Council Member
> City of Corona
> 951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/12/16, 4:01 PM, "Elaine Harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Eugene ‐ I would like to put in my 2 cents regarding the >> housing development at Skyline. Skyline is a hidden treasure in >> Corona ‐ a place to get back to nature in the midst of this growing city. Please leave it >> that way. I am confused as to why now that work is being done on the >> 15, 91 and Foothill Parkway, that so many housing developments ‐ and >> many are high density ‐ are being approved. These will make the fwy >> improvements obsolete. Who benefits from all of this? Builders?? >> At least leave Skyline alone! Elaine Harris
>
2 (cont.)
3

Page 3004 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 74
Elaine Harris
[email protected]
Response to Letter 74
Response to Comment 74-1. With regard to the comment that more homes in the area would crowd out the “return to nature” aspect of Skyline Trail, please see Responses to Comments 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” and 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

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 74-2. This comment is a response from the City to Comment 74-3 from Elaine Harris. However, other than the comment that nothing is being done to Skyline Trail, the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, so no further response is warranted.

With respect to project impacts to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Parks and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 74-3. The comments requesting that the City leave the project site in its natural condition, asking why so many housing developments are being approved, indicating that these development will make the 15, 91 and Foothill Parkway improvements obsolete, and asking who benefits from all this development, 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).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-352

Page 3005 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:21 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: REJECT the applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: REJECT the applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail FYI
From: Trevizo Chiropractic [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; [email protected]
Subject: REJECT the 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: May 9, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Didier Trevizo and I am a resident and business owner 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 postponed 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 subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for LETTER 75
1

Page 3006 of 3613 ends

2 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, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts, like myself, including many of our local high school cross-country teams, who wish to conserve access to natural open areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest for exercise and that beautiful natural escape, which can only build a healthier and more holistic community.

I personally have run, trained, mountain-biked, and hiked up, over and around Skyline at least a 1000 times over the last 22 years. Nothing is greater than to escape from our regimented lives of work, daily stresses and the concrete congestion of streets and freeways, than to explore the natural wonders that God gave us; to reflect, to pray, to breathe, to wonder, and to find one’s own harmony in ones’ self. And better yet, to share this with your kids, family or friends is what’s even more amazing! My kids’ fondest memories are their adventures on Skyline, from the natural watershed streams that harbor the California Orange-bellied Newt, to Tin Mine Canyon nature trail and its mysteries, to the small but challenging and adventurous rope course, to side trails to experience natural wild life including deer, bobcat and foxes or the beautiful King snake and the smallest Horned Toad lizard.

Their lives have been forever changed and permanently touched by the awe and wonder of God’s creation.

And that is just about the annexed Flats I speak of, not to mention Skyline Trail itself! Winding upwards Skyline opens up panoramic vistas and majestic views across the valley to our snowcapped mountains. Once on the top of Skyline, it will leave a forever memory of a view that is awe inspiring and breath-taking. From here, there is a 360 degree view that encompasses Catalina Island, Orange County to L.A., Big Bear and the Inland Empire itself! There is no other substitute to having this so close, in our own backyard and its simple accessibility; this can only be viewed as positive, and makes for all of us a more ‘whole’ community. Besides taking away a large part of the accessible walking Flats, a proposal to move parking an additional mile away will greatly impede many older, semi-handicapped and younger people access to Skyline Trail. We as a whole could not be more fortunate or thankful, but we must protect this opportunity and conserve these open spaces, including access to all the natural areas that is afforded to us by our Cleveland National Forest. We as a community implore you to reject the applications and support our goals towards healthier lifestyles and a healthier community. I now ask simply, that you be like us, stand by us and vote the right decision with us!
Thank you so much for your earnest consideration and support, Didier Trevizo
Trevizo Chiropractic, Corona (Owner)
1 (cont.)
2 3

Page 3007 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 75
Didier Trevizo
Trevizo Chiropractic
Corona, CA
[email protected]
Response to Letter 75
Response to Comment 75-1. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Responses to Comments 75-2 and 75-3. The comment describing the commenter’s experiences hiking and mountain-biking in the Skyline are 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 project impacts to Skyline Trail, please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Parks and Open-Space District).

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

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

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

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-355

Page 3008 of 3613 ends

LETTER 76
3 2
1

Page 3009 of 3613 ends

6 5
4 3
(cont.) Page 3010 of 3613
7

Page 3011 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 76
Tariq Shamma
TMS Consortium
807 E. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92881
Response to Letter 76
Response to Comment 76-1. The comment summarizing the project proposal 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 76-2. The comment indicating that the Staff reports for the project emphasize that project traffic issues would be improved with completion of the Foothill Parkway Extension Project in 2017 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 76-3. The comments indicating that the project would include 292 single family residents on lots of a minimum of 7,200 sq ft., that no lots are designated for commercial uses, schools or parks, that the Traffic section of the Draft EIR indicates that the Foothill Parkway Extension would be a Secondary Arterial designated to carry 25,900 vehicles per day, and that the project would generate 2,780 daily trips, including 219 AM peak hour trips and 292 PM peak hour trips, 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 comment that the trip generation estimates in the Traffic analysis “seem low”, the Draft EIR evaluated project traffic impacts in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). As indicated on page 4.M-18, the trip generation estimates for the project are based on per unit single family residential (Code 210) trip generation rates from the Ninth Edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (e.g., ITE Manual). The ITE Manual trip generation rates are industry-accepted rates accepted by Riverside County, the City of Corona, and Caltrans. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.M-13, the TIA was conducted in accordance with the City of Corona TIA criteria and discussions with City staff.

With regard to project traffic impacts along the Foothill Parkway Extension, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin). The 512 project trips referenced in the comment is the sum of the project’s AM (219 trips) and PM peak hour (292 trips) trips. The trip distribution pattern (Figure 5-2 of the TIA) shows 55% of the traffic will be east on Foothill Parkway (25% using Lincoln Avenue and 30% staying on Foothill Parkway), 40% would be west on Foothill Parkway (5% using Paseo Grande and 35% continuing west on Green River Road) and 5% would use Border Avenue.

Response 76-4: With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin). As indicated therein, project traffic impacts City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-359

Page 3012 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
would be less than significant with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. Furthermore, the traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with City and County CMP guidelines, is adequate as written, and no amendment of the analysis is required.

With respect specifically to the comment that all planned streets intersecting with Foothill Parkway should be signalized, two existing study intersections and three future study intersections (e.g., intersections with the recently completed Foothill Parkway Extension) were evaluated in the traffic analysis as shown in Figure

4.M-1, Study Intersections and Roadway Segments, in Section 4.M, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As indicated, these include Intersections 10 (Elysia Street/Foothill Parkway), 11 (Trudy Way/Foothill Parkway), 12 (Chase Drive/Foothill Parkway), 13 (Border Avenue-B Street/Foothill Parkway), and 14 (P Street/Foothill Parkway). As indicated in Tables 4.M-7 through 4.M-9, the project would not result in significant traffic impacts at any of these intersections under existing with project and Year 2020 with project conditions, and would only result in significant impacts at Intersections 10 and 11 under Year 2035 with project conditions. As indicated on pages 4.M-43 and 4.M-44, Mitigation Measures TR-3 and TR-4 require the project proponent to install traffic signals at the intersection of Elysia Street/Foothill Parkway (Intersection 10) and the project’s primary entrance on Foothill Parkway and Trudy Way (Intersection 11).

Therefore, only two of the studied intersections would result in a significant traffic impact ( Intersections 10 and 11) and would require a traffic signal as mitigation However, it is worth mentioning the traffic analysis for the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension warranted traffic signals at the intersections of Foothill Parkway at Chase Drive, Border Avenue, and Green River Road. These traffic signals were installed by the City with the construction of Foothill Parkway and are currently in operation. In all, Foothill Parkway west of Lincoln Avenue will have five (5) new traffic signals.

Response 76-5: As indicated on page 4.M-18 in Section 4.M, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the trip generation estimates for the project applied in the traffic analysis are based on per unit single family residential (Code 210) trip generation rates from the Ninth Edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (e.g., ITE Manual). The ITE Manual trip generation rates are industryaccepted rates accepted by Riverside County and the City of Corona, and no reductions in these rates were assumed for on-site commercial, medical or school uses (e.g., the rates used assume that off-site trips would occur for services (e.g., shopping, medical, recreation, school, etc.) and employment. Furthermore, as indicated on pages 4.I-2 and 4.I-16 in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the project site is currently zoned by the County and City for residential use, not commercial, medical or school uses, and would continue to be zoned for residential use under the project (albeit at a higher density). Lastly, adding on-site commercial, medical, school and park uses to the project is not warranted because, as indicated on pages 4.M-44 and 4.L-26 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant traffic, school, and parks impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures.

Response to Comment 76-6. The recommendations that two lots on the project site should be rezoned for commercial/professional use, that a school site should be provided on-site, and that on-site parks should be provided, are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as the project would result in less than significant schools and traffic impacts with implementation of the mitigation measures stipulated in the Draft EIR, the implementation of these recommendations is not warranted. Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) regarding project traffic and schools impacts for further discussion.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-360

Page 3013 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 76-7. 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 76-1 through 76-6.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-361

Page 3014 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 3:58 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Strongly Oppose Skyline Heights Project
Attachments: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails System (From Wilson Hsing).pdf From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:04 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Strongly Oppose Skyline Heights Project
From: Wilson Hsing [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:04 AM
To: [email protected]; Terri Manuel
Cc: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Strongly Oppose Skyline Heights Project
Dear All:

The area we live in, Orchard Glen Homeowners, is already saturated. Right now, it takes us an additional 45 minutes to go to work in Orange County due to the heavy traffic to 91W. With an additional 300 homes in the area, will make traffic conditions worse. In the past few years, I have seen a lot of my neighbors moving out of this area due to the heavy traffic in the morning.

I strongly oppose this project. Please kindly see my petition attached. Thank you very much! LETTER 77
1

Page 3015 of 3613 ends

2 Page 3016 of 3613
3 4
5 6
7 8
9101112
13 Page 3017 of 3613
14 Page 3018 of 3613

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 77
Wilson Tsing
[email protected]
Response to Letter 77
Response to Comment 77-1. 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 the comment expressing opposition to the project, 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 77-2. With regard to the comment that the project would negatively impact the Skyline hiking trail system, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the comment requesting that the City not approve the listed project entitlements, 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.

With regard to the comment that the project should be consistent with the City’s General Plan for Trails and Greenways (Goals 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3), with an emphasis on maintaining existing and potential new trail linkages between parks, the CNF, and other open spaces, please see Responses to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With respect specifically to project consistency with the referenced Trails and Greenways goals and policies, please see the analysis below which indicates that the project would be consistent with these goals and policies.

Goals and Policies Evaluation of Project Consistency
Goal 2.4 – A City whose urban form and community
character are defined by its interconnected parklands and open spaces.

Consistent. Please see Responses to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space
District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1,
United States Forest Service). Furthermore: (1) as
indicated on page 2-15 of the Draft EIR, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service parcels within the annexation area and the open space parcel at the south edge of the
annexation area would be maintained as permanent open
space; (2) as shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, Landscape
Plan, of the Draft EIR, the proposed subdivision would
include landscape slopes, detention basins and open space areas, defensible space landscaping, and street trees; and (3) as indicated in Figure 2-10, Open Space Concept Plan, in the DEIR, the outside edges of the subdivision would include a system of turfed overlook areas interconnected by 5 foot wide concrete walkways.

Policy 2.4.1 – Develop a plan and implement
improvements that visually and physically interconnect
the City’s parklands and link these and residential
neighborhoods with the Temescal Creek Wash, the
Cleveland National Forest, and other open spaces. This
may be accomplished by the installation of a continuous corridor of trees, plantings, informational signage, trails, and/or other defining elements along existing streets that connect the parks and open spaces or new corridors,
where feasible.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-366

Page 3019 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Policy 2.4.2 – Develop a program for the visual
enhancement of Temescal Creek and Wash as an amenity
for the City through landscaping with native species, soil remediation, and incorporation of trails and nature
observation platforms and other facilities. Development standards for private uses adjoining these areas should be modified to orient buildings to and assure landscape
transitions and compatibility with these resources. Such improvement should be designed to provide adequate
flood protection for adjoining properties.

Not Applicable. The project site is not located along the Temescal Creek and Wash. Therefore, this policy is not
applicable.

Policy 2.4.3 – Require that new master-planned
residential subdivisions incorporate parks, greenways,
and open spaces as a character-defining amenity for their residents, emphasizing the retention of natural landforms and important plant communities.

Consistent. Please see project consistency analysis for Goal 2.4 and Policy 2.4.1 above.

Response to Comment 77-3. The comment requesting the total preservation of the entire Skyline trails system is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District, and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 77-4. Please see Response to Comment 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 77-5. Please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” and 1-9 under “Vantage Points/Visual Simulations” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 77-6. 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 the comment that no analysis or mitigation of impacts to freeway on/off ramps was included, analysis of project traffic impacts to freeway on/off ramps was not conducted because: (1) of the lengthy distance between the project site and the closest freeway on/off ramps; (2) the relatively small scale of the project and associated traffic (e.g., 219 AM peak hour and 292 PM peak hour trips); (3) such analysis is not required by the City when there is freeway construction; and (4) the proposed SR-91 Freeway Improvement project would mitigate any potential traffic impact caused by project traffic. Furthermore, the traffic analysis was conducted per City and County CMP guidelines. Therefore, an analysis of project traffic impacts to freeway on/off ramps is not required.

Response to Comment 77-7. As indicated above in Response to Comment 70-16, above, the location of mitigation is negotiated with the lead and regulatory agencies and may or may not include onsite mitigation (see Response to Comment 45-4). For example, oak trees will be mitigated onsite, while other 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 77-8. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard” (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-367

Page 3020 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response 77-9: 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 77-10. With regard to project impacts to parks, 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 comment requesting that the park development fees to be paid by the project be earmarked for access, maintenance and parking for the Skyline hiking trails, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, the park development fees to be paid by the project would be for mitigating the impacts of the project on parks, not for project impacts to trails which would be less than significant. Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and OpenSpace District) and 45-7 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson) for further discussion.

With regard to the comment that the project would create a City parkland deficit of 161, acres, this is incorrect. Please see Response to Comment 70-20 (Letter 70, Courtney Kasey).

Response to Comment 77-11. With regard to project impacts to police protection services and schools, please see Responses to Comments 9-12 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Michelle Arnold) and 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin), respectively. With regard to project impacts to fire protection services, fire protection is addressed in Section 4.L, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, with supporting data provided in Appendix J, Public Services and Utility Correspondence and Background Information. As indicated on page 4.L-12 through 4.L-14, with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measures, project impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 77-12. Please see Responses to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 77-13. The contention that project parking impacts are not evaluated in the Draft EIR is incorrect. The Draft EIR evaluated the parking impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. As indicated on page 4.M-36, the project would provide parking in compliance with City of Corona parking requirements, and the impact would be less than significant.

With regard to the comment that parking would be impacted once the Foothill Parkway Westerly extension is complete, the Foothill Parkway Extension Project, and the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, are separate projects from the Skyline Heights project under CEQA, and the project would not generate impacts associated with those projects. Furthermore, the project site is not used or set aside for public parking associated with the Skyline hiking trail. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comment 77-14. The comment includes a copy of a handout that summarizes the proposed project, indicates that a Draft EIR has been prepared by the City of Corona for the project, identifies the deadline for the public to submit comments on the Draft EIR, identifies where to send the comments, indicates that the comments should focus on issues/concerns specific to the Draft EIR content, and indicates City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-368

Page 3021 of 3613 ends

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
that a Planning and Housing Commission meeting will be held on May 9th on the project. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-369

Page 3022 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 7:54 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Date: April 29, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM PDT
To: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

Resent-From: <[email protected]>
From: Roger Conard <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2016 at 9:01:36 PM PDT
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]>, Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Treasurer, Public Works Director and Planning Manager:

My name is Roger Conard. I live at 3575 Santa Rosa Circle, Corona, CA.

The City is too focused on development and not concentrating in maintaining quality of life in Corona. I am writing to urge you to oppose the Skyline Heights development as it is currently proposed. We already have too much traffic in west Corona on Green River Drive and it will only get worse with the completion of Foothill Parkway. Due to your approval of the Arantine Hills project and your expected additional developments in South Corona along the 15 freeway, the Sierra Bella project and now the Skyline Heights project, thousands of cars will filter through Corona's Foothill corridor with the completion of Foothill Parkway.

LETTER 78
1

Page 3023 of 3613 ends

2 During one accident on the 91 freeway, I sat in immovable traffic in front of Corona Fire Station No. 5 for 40 minutes, moving one-tenth of a one mile.

Based on the issue the City created with the Orchard Glen development, it is obvious the City has failed the residents of Corona with your lack of vision and long-term planning as evidenced with the dangerous parking situation for the Skyline Drive trailhead. You have not considered the trails and wildlife that live in those foothills. At the April 11th Planning Commission meeting, I presented a slide show of animals I have photographed between Oakridge Drive and Skyline Drive. These animals live outside of the Cleveland National Forest in southern Corona, right where Sierra Bella and Skyline Heights are slated to be built. I currently hike on trails from Oakridge Drive into the Cleveland National Forest through property slated for development in the Sierra Bella project. As noted by others opposing development, the city has no Trails Master Plan. With these new developments being gated communities, I stand to lose what limited access I have to unique canyons and trails outside of the Cleveland National Forest.

Regarding the aesthetics of the Corona foothills, as I drive from Chino, down the 71 to Corona, all I see are the brown scars in the foothills from the grading for Sierra Bella. The scars from the cutbacks on the hills in Sierra Peak still stand out as eyesores even with the limited vegetation planted on those hills.

I urge the Planning Commission and City leaders to:

Please DO NOT APPROVE 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.

Please DO NOT APPROVE 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.

Please DO NOT APPROVE 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.

Please DO NOT APPROVE 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.

1 (cont.)
2 3
4

Page 3024 of 3613 ends

3 Please DO NOT APPROVE any of the Skyline Heights project applications until a city-wide Trails Master Plan is adopted. This Plan should be consistent with the City’s General Plan for Trails and Greenways (Goals 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3), with an emphasis on maintaining existing and potential new trail linkages between parks, Cleveland National Forest, and other open spaces. --
Roger Conard
Conard Photo
866-736-9696
www.conardphoto.com
951-870-0946 cell
[email protected]
4 (cont.) Page 3025 of 3613
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 78
Roger Conard
Conard Photo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 78
Response to Comment 78-1. The comment requesting that the City oppose the project as currently proposed 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 impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin). With regard to cumulative traffic, please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 78-2. With regard to the impacts of the project on trails and trail access, please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

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 the Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 78-3. Please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 78-4. The comments requesting that the City not approve the applications for the project are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Because these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

The comment that the City not approve the project until a City-wide Trails Master Plan is adopted would not change the fact the project site does not include dedicated public access trails. The dedicated access to Skyline Trail from Foothill Parkway and Hagador Canyon is not being removed or altered by the project.

However, the project proponent has agreed to assist the city with funding a city-wide Master Trails Plan as a condition of approval for the project. The condition of approval for TTM 36544 includes Condition 1PL-010, Prior to the City’s final certification of annexation for the Local Agency Formation Commission’s proceedings to annex the Skyline Heights property into the City of Corona, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to be approved by the City’s Community Development Department Director, that commits the developer to provide sufficient funding for the preparation of a Trails Master Plan, which shall include the Skyline Trail.

Also, see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-373

Page 3026 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 7:55 AM
To: David Crook
Subject: Fwd: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications. Save Skyline.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Date: April 29, 2016 at 7:49:52 AM PDT
To: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>, Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications. Save Skyline.

FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

Resent-From: <[email protected]>
From: Stephanie Morales <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2016 at 5:48:01 PM PDT
To: Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox
<[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez
<[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel
<[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications. Save Skyline.

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Stephanie Morales and I am a resident of Ontario, 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.

LETTER 79
1

Page 3027 of 3613 ends

2 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.

I have been driving from Ontario for several years into Corona so I may enjoy the beautiful scenery and sense of nature that is only too hard to find as housing development increases. Skyline has a valuable ecosystem that needs to be left intact. Hikers, cyclists and families taking their children out to explore nature first hand all want to help preserve this landscape that is ever so hard to find as cities grow and become more congested. In my experience Skyline offers a place to find peace and quiet away from backed up fwys, smoggy congestion, and cal-trans' never ending construction. I drive through all of that because it is worth it for me.

Skyline isn't just a great place to challenge yourself physically but a place for many to meet up or simply say hello to another friendly face on the trail. It's harder and harder to have access to a place where you can feel safe within nature and not have to drive hours away to find it. My fear is that this generation of children won't know what wild flowers, trees, and grasses look like anymore. I was born and and raised in California my whole life and every wild canyon i used to hike through where the deers would roam, the hawks would fly high and the coyotes would cry are now all gone and replaced with neighborhoods of model homes. In replacement there are now neighborhood parks cut into flat land and limited space which is where I do not want my children to see as a representation of California beauty. I implore you to reject the applications and support the goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Stephanie Morales
1 (cont.)
2

Page 3028 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 79
Stephanie Morales
[email protected]
Response to Letter 79
Response to Comment 79-1. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 79-2. With regard to the impacts of the project on aesthetics/visual character, biological resources, open space, and trails/trail access, please see the following responses to comments:
• Aesthetics/Visual Character: 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service). • Biological Resources: 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman). • Open Space: 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service). • Trails/Trail Access: 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the comments requesting that the project application be denied and the project site be preserved, these comments are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The project site represents private land that is designated by the County and City for urban development. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-376

Page 3029 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trail
From: Lydia Castillo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:14 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Protect Skyline Trail
There are many reasons and benefits as why not to build on Skyline, Please understand that taking away this natural environment from Corona residents will take away from the positiveness that the mountain provides, among other reasons, such as, taking away homes of animals and birds who only know Skyline as home. Please do not let greed line the pockets of the city council and other members of planning committee. Corona is already turning into an over crowded town, one of the reasons why Coronians do not want to expand and invite thousands of others.. Please listen to its citeziens and DO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE MOUNTAIN VIEW AND EVERYTHING AROUND IT!
LETTER 80
1

Page 3030 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 80
Lydia Castillo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 80
Response to Comment 80-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project, and identifying the benefits of keeping the project site in natural open space, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

With regard to the impacts of the project on biological resources, trails, open space, and traffic, please see the following responses to comments:
• Biological Resources: 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman); • Trails: 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District); • Open Space: 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service); and • Traffic: 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-378

Page 3031 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:39 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Plz protect Skyline
From: Wes Bemis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:43 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Plz protect Skyline
Hello,
Skyline is such a treasure in Corona for hikers & mountain bikers. Being able to enjoy the trails & beauty of Skyline has enhanced our lives in many ways as Corona residents.

If at all possible we would love to preserve Skyline the way it is.

Thank you!
Wes Bemis
898 Big Spring Ct
Corona, CA 92880
714‐305‐1859
LETTER 81 1

Page 3032 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 81
Wes Bemis
898 Big Spring Court
Corona, CA 92880
[email protected]
Response to Letter 81
Response to Comment 81-1. Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-380

Page 3033 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:19 AM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline rezoning
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 8:23 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline rezoning
FYI
From: eveline zadeh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:21 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Skyline rezoning
April 30, 2016

TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] C: [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 Eveline Zadeh 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 postponed April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

LETTER 82
1

Page 3034 of 3613 ends

2 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.

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, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts, like myself, including many of our local high school cross-country teams, who wish to conserve access to natural open areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest for exercise and that beautiful natural escape, which can only build a healthier and more holistic community.
….Hiker’s Personal Anecdote:

I personally have [ADD PERSONAL ANECDOTE HERE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SKYLINE or REASONS TO SUPPORT ACCESS] 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. Through all the daily stresses of working, studying, commuting and living through the congestion of our roads and freeways, our community members and many nature enthusiasts and hiking groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected. We as a community 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.

My family and I have lived in Corona for over 30 years and want to keep the natural beauty intact for the community and wild life.

Thank you so much for your earnest time and consideration, Eveline Zadeh
1 (cont.)
2 3

Page 3035 of 3613 ends

3 Sent from my iPhone

Page 3036 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 82
Eveline Zadeh
[email protected]
Response to Letter 82
Responses to Comments 82-1 and 82-2. 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).

Response to Comment 82-3. The comment that the commenter’s family has lived in Corona for over 30 years and want to keep the natural beauty intact for the community and wildlife is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) regarding the impacts of the project on aesthetics/visual character, and Response to Comment 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman) regarding the impacts of the project on biological resources.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-384

Page 3037 of 3613 ends

1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:24 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Trails in Corona
From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 2:36 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Trails in Corona
From: Wes Bemis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 1:10 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Cc: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Skyline Trails in Corona
Hello,
I’m a resident of Corona. The single best thing about living here is having access to the Skyline trail system. My girls & I have been riding our mountain bikes up Skyline wkly for the last 3 years & hope to do it for the rest of our lives.

It’s an incredible venue to enjoy nature, exercise & build relationships.

I know the city council is considering more homes up there. I beg you to continue allowing access from Foothill. I’m also requesting that you adopt a Master Trails Plan before any decision about this project is made.

Thank you for your consideration!
Wes Bemis
714‐305‐1859
LETTER 83
1

Page 3038 of 3613 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 83
Wes Bemis
[email protected]
Response to Letter 83
Response to Comment 83-1. Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) and 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-386

Page 3039 of 3613 ends

Corona City CouncilJuly 1, 2026

Corona City Council
July 1, 2026