Exhibit 5 - Planning and Housing Commission Staff Report for SP2025-0001.pdf — Corona City Council, July 1, 2026 (part 10 of 10)

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 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 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 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/ 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.

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 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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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

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.

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 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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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
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.

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. 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.

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
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

Mitigation
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)
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
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. 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. 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
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.

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
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:
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

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
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 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. 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
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 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 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 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)
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

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

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
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
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!

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
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

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
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
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. 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.

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]
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
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.
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 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 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

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
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!

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
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

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
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:
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.

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 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
3 Sent from my iPhone

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
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

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

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 84
State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Inland Deserts Region
Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
Response to Letter 84
Response to Comment 84-1. This comment provides an introduction to the comments contained in this letter. Please see Responses to Comments 84-2 through 84-6 below.

Response to Comment 84-2. This comment provides suggested text edits to Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2, which was contained in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR. The City, in response to this comment, has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR. The project applicant has agreed to the requirements of this revised mitigation with one exception as relates to the provision of fencing around each site. While the applicant would implement all other aspects of the suggested mitigation, including signage to discourage trespass, given the location of these habitat areas surrounded by existing vegetation and topography, the City has determined that such fencing is not necessary since the natural open space being maintained under the project design would provide an uninterrupted extension of native habitat to the preservation and mitigation areas required by the project, and further, the project would not provide any direct access to such areas. Nonetheless, all other provisions of revised Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2 would be implemented as stated in the comment.

Response to Comment 84-3. This comment provides suggested text edits to Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3, which was contained in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR. The City, in response to this comment, has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR in accordance with the text provided in the comment.

Response to Comment 84-4. This comment provides suggested text edits to Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4, which was contained in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR. The City, in response to this comment, has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR in accordance with the text provided in the comment.

Response to Comment 84-5. This comment recommends that the City complete the County’s MSHCP consistency review process prior to circulating the Final EIR for the proposed project. However, while the Department’s recommendation is acknowledged by the City, this is not a legal requirement and the applicant is willing to assume the risk associated with potential changes in project mitigation that may result from that process should the City publish the Final EIR (or certify the EIR and approve the project as proposed) prior to completion of the MSHCP consistency review and approval of the DBESP.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-393

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 84-6. This comment provides a conclusion to the comments provided above in this letter. Please see Responses to Comments 84-1 through 84-5 above.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-394

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
PLANNING (MS 722)
464 WEST 41h STREET, 61h Floor
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-4557
FAX (909) 383-5936
TTY (909) 383-6300
www.dot.ca.gov/dist8
November 23, 2016
City of Corona
Planning Department
Jason Moquin
Senior Planner
400 S. Vicentia A venue
Corona, CA 92882
Mr. Moquin,
Skyline Heights Project SCH#2014021003 (RIV 15 PM 40.35) EDMUND G. BROWN Jr Governor
~
Serious • drought
Help save waler!
We have received the Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal for the above referenced project, located westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paso Grande and west of Trudy Way. Project area includes 395 acres located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County within the City of Corona Sphere of Influence. Proposal will subdivided approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots.

After reviewing the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project we have determined that this project will not have a substantial impact to the State Highway System.

California Department of Transportation has no comment at this time. However, the California Department of Transportation reserves the right to comment on any future revisions to this project.

Should this proposal be later modified please forward copies of revised plans as necessary so that ·we may reevaluate all proposed changes for potential impact to I-15.

Sincerely,
MARK
~~ ROBERTS
Office Chief
Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California 's economy and livability" ..

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 85
State of California
Department of Transportation
District 8
Mark Roberts, Office Chief
Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning MS 722
464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
Response to Letter 85
Response to Comment 85-1. This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the RDEIR for the proposed project, and indicates that the Department of Transportation has determined that the proposed project will not have a substantial effect on the State Highway System and no further comments are provided. Thus, no further response is necessary.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-396
JASON E. UHLEY
General Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Corona
..... '.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 4, 20 17
Community Development Department, Planning Division
400 South Vicentia A venue
Corona, CA 92882-2 I 87
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250 I
951.955.1200
FAX 951.788.9965
www. ref! ood. org
209850
Attention: Jason Moquin, Senior Planner Re: GPA 13-003, CZ 13-002, Annexation 11 7, TIM 36544 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue:
• This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities or any other proposed facilities of regional interest.
• An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or fac ilities: Mabey Canyon Debris Basin and Oak Street Channel. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266.

GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLO MR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 40 I Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. c: Riverside County Planning Department
Attn: Kristi Lovelady
HY:bad
Very truly yours,
.e_ 1J J . ~WA'v tft-~~ EDWIN QUINONEZ
Engineering Project Manager

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 86
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Edwin Quinonez
Engineering Project Manager
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Response to Letter 86
Response to Comment 86-1. This comment provides an introduction to the comments contained in this letter. Please see Responses to Comments 86-2 and 86-3 below.

Response to Comment 86-2. This comment indicates that the project would not be impacted by RCFCWCD Master Drainage Plan facilities or other regional facilities and that encroachment permits will be necessary for any construction activities within the District’s right-of-way or facilities, including the Mabey Canyon Debris Basin and the Oak Street Channel. However, while this comment is acknowledged by the City, it does not raise a substantive issue regarding the Draft EIR or RDEIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 86-3. This comment summarizes various permits issued by other public agencies that may be required for implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in the Draft EIR and RDEIR, the project would be required to obtain such permits prior to initiation of any grading or construction activities on the project site. However, this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the Draft EIR or RDEIR, and therefore no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-398

PECHANGA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians
VIA E-MAIL and USPS
Mr. Jason Moquin
Senior Planner
City of Corona Planning Division
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
Post Office. Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92593
Telephone (951) 308-9295 •Fax (951) 506-9491
January 3, 201 7
Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer:

Gary P. DuBois, JD, MSW
THPO Historian:

Lisa Woodward, Ph.D.

Assistant THPO:

Anna Hoover, RP A
Advisory Review Board:

Mary Bear Magee
Evie Gerber
Darlene Miranda
Richard B. Scearce
Bridgette Barcello
Neal Ibanez
Michael Vasquez
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Skyline Heights Project, GPA 13-003, C13-002, Annexation 117, TR 36544
Dear Mr. Moquin:

This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, regarding the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) on the above named Project. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"), to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project, and that these comments be incorporated into the record of approval.

Pechanga thanks the City of Corona for acknowledging the impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) and for providing mitigation to preserve and protect the sensitive Luisefio cultural resources and traditional landscapes found in this area, and for requiring both archaeological and Pechanga tribal monitoring during earthmoving activities. The State and Federal governments have mandated that impacts to cultural resources must be appropriately mitigated within the confines of development projects. However, the Tribe is concerned with the RDEIR as the proposed Cultural Resources mitigation measures in the MMRP are not inclusive of the measures that were confirmed via electronic mail by the City in January 2016. We further note that the standard City measures have been modified since January 2016, and thus, the Tribe recommends that the below measures be incorporated in the RDEIR and in all applicable environmental documents associated with the Project.

Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 2 ends

PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of Luisefio, and therefore the Tribe's, aboriginal, pre-contact territory, as evidenced by the existence of Luisefio place names, t6ota yixelval (rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs), travel/trail systems, natural resources and a Traditional Cultural Landscape (TCL) that includes varying degrees of overlapping significance.

The Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this Project as the Tribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the Project property and is the closest affiliated tribe to the Project location. The Tribe has specific knowledge of cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed Project which we have shared with the City on previous occasions for this and other projects.

The Tribe welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction, if so desired.

REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES
Pechanga is not opposed to this Project; however, we are opposed to any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts this Project may have to TCRs. The Tribe's primary concerns stem from the Project's proposed impacts on Native American cultural resources, which includes both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luisefio village sites, sacred sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work.

The Tribe understands that the DEIR was recirculated to address specific biologic concerns identified during the original circulation. However, since that time, Pechanga has continued SB 18 consultation with the City and determined that the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 document are unclear and insufficient to properly address impacts to TCRs during earthmoving activities. In an electronic communication from January 2016, revised mitigation measures were directed to be included in the RDEIR. However, since they were not included in this document and as the City has since modified their standard measures, we suggest the below language to be included in the Final EIR and all applicable environmental documents associated with this Project.

The revised measures are included below (underlines are additions; strikeouts are deletions).

Mitigation Measure CR-1: In the event that archaeological materials ffi·e discovered during construction all effi·tl1 n1oving activity '<vithin and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a. qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 3 ends

of the find and, if necessary develop appropriate treat1nent measures. Treatment measures typiea±Ly isclude deovelopment of avoidance strategies, capping ·with fill material or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation. [f during cultural resourees monitoring the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being exeava!ed are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain sign:ificm1t cultural materials, the ql1alified archaeologist can specify--4fiat monitoring be reduced or edimiflated.
l\t:ative American monitoTs ffom affectecl Tribes shall obsen·e all project related grading activities, aRd the treatment of ooy recovered artifacts shall be can·ied out iH accordance with the provisions of a Treatment Agreement between affected Tribes. The Treatment Agreement shall be executed by the consultir1g Tribes prior to the issuance of grading pennits for each construction phase. All cultural materials that are collected dufing the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studiea or excavations on the project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated reeords sha:U be transferred inelading title, to an appropriate cmation facility which meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79 for federal repositories. All sacred sites should they be ·encountered wi.thie: the project area shall be a.voided Ofld preserved as fu.e preferred mitigation. If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

Tribal Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the SB 18 process ("Monitoring Tribes' ). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monjtoring Agreement(s).

A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Corona Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading pennit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling: terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City s mitigation measmes/conditions of approval. The TribaJ Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate are-a of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps. in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

Mitigation Measure CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring: At least 30-days pnor to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 4 ends

disturbing activities on the site take place. the Project Applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and RP A-certified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources/TCRs and assist with avoidance. preservation and/or mitigation per the City's Mitigation Measures on known resources.

1. The Project Archaeologist in consultation with the Monitoring Tribe(s). the Developer and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site.

Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project g,rrading and development scheduling:
b. The Project archeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural. Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivitv of the Project and the surrounding area: what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monjtoring program: the protocols ·that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivitv Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Monitoring Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. c. The coordination of a monitoring schedule as agreed upon by the Monitoring Tribe(s). the Project archaeologist and the applicant; d. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer. City, Monitoring Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resow-ces evaluation:

Mitigation Measure CR-3 Treatment and Disposition of Tribal Cultural Resources:

In the event that Tribal Cultural ResoW"ces are inadvertently discovered during the course Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2I83 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 5 ends

of grading for this Project. and avoidance of the TCRs is not feasible, the following procedmes will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish O\ nership of all cultural resources. inc ludin g all archaeologica l a1iifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Human remains, sacred/ceremonial items and burial good will be addres ed per State Law. Mitigation Measur CR- and t he Agreement required in Mitigation Measure CR-I. The applicant shall relinquish the ai1ifact as indicated below and provide the ity of Corona Community Development Depat1ment with evidence of same:
a. Professional curation, including_ a curation agreement with a qualified repo itory in River ide County Lhat meets federa l standards per 36 CFR Patt 79, and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers upon application. The col.lections and associated records shall be transferred. including title. to an appropriate curation faciLitv within Riverside Co untv, to be accompanied bv payment of t he fees necessary for permanent curation:
b. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tri bal Monitors witbfo 60 days of completion of grading. Thjs repmt shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled: document the type of cultural resources recovered and the di po ition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sen itivity training for t he construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and. in a confidential appendix. include the daily/weeklv monitoring notes !Tom the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Corona, Eastern Information Center and Monitoring Tribe( ).

Mitigation Measure CR-4 Sacred Sites: All sacred sites. should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation. if feasible.

Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 6 ends

Mitigation Measure CR-5 Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving. the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within I 00 feet of the find.

The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community and Economic Development Depru1ment immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5Cb). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin.

If human remains are determined to be Native American,, the applicant sbaU comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NARC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shal.I contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely de cendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her i11Spection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Treatment and disposition of the remains shall be determined in consultation with the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate disposition of human remains and any associated grave artifacts. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials are confidential and may not be disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Lnformation enter (EiC). A Sacred Lands File form will be submitted to the NAHC by the project archaeologist and the Monitmi11g Tribe(s).

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemete1y (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Mitigation Measure CR-U: Paleontological mitigation. Not Applicable to Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measure CR-~7: Paleontological mitigation. Not Applicable to Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measure CR-48: Paleontological mitigation. Not Applicable to Cultural Resources.

Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred ls The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Corona
Re: Pechanga Comments on the NOA for a RDEIR - Skyline Heights January 3, 2017

Page 7 ends

The Tribe reserves the right to fully participate in the environmental review process, as well as to provide further comment on the Project's impacts to cultural resources and potential mitigation for such impacts.

The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continue working together with the City of Corona in protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me at 951-770-8104 or at [email protected] should you have any questions or concerns regarding the revised mitigation measures. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Anna Hoover
Deputy THPO
Cultural Analyst
Cc Pechanga Office of the General Counsel
Pechanga Cultural Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2I83 •Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 87
Pechanga Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
Anna Hoover, Deputy THPO, Cultural Analyst
Post Office. Box 2183
Temecula, CA 92593
Response to Letter 87
Response to Comment 87-1. This comment provides an introduction to the comments contained in this letter and requests notification of future project-related activities. Please see Responses to Comments 87-2 through 87-11 below.

Response to Comment 87-2. This comment acknowledges the City’s cooperation with the Tribe regarding inclusion of mitigation measures in the EIR, but also suggests that specific changes to mitigation language were not included in the RDEIR as requested but that revised mitigation measures are provided for the City’s consideration. Although the City was provided the revised mitigation measures prior to preparation of the RDEIR, because the RDEIR was prepared only to address updated technical analysis related to biological resources, it was not appropriate to include revised Cultural Resources mitigation measures in that document. Rather, these changes were to be implemented in the Final EIR, as discussed further below. As such, in response to this request, the City has revised the mitigation measures contained in Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR in accordance with the suggested revisions, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-3. This comment provides background information regarding the Tribe’s cultural affiliation to the project area, which is acknowledged by the City. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the contents of the Draft EIR or RDEIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 87-4. This comment provides an introduction to the proposed revisions to mitigation measures related to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), and again notes that these revisions were not incorporated into the RDEIR. However, as noted above, revisions to mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources was not appropriate in the RDEIR, as the only materials that were recirculated related to biological resources. As such, these changes were not implemented in the EIR at that time. Nonetheless, the City agrees with the suggested modifications and thus these text changes have been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-5. The suggested modifications to this mitigation measure have been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-6. The suggested modifications to this mitigation measure have been City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-406
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-7. The suggested modifications to this mitigation measure have been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-8. The suggested modifications to this mitigation measure have been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-9. The suggested modifications to this mitigation measure have been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-10. The suggested renumbering of these mitigation measures has been incorporated into Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 87-11. This comment provides a conclusion to the comments provided above in this letter. Please see Responses to Comments 87-1 through 87-10 above.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-407
1 David Crook
From: Jason Moquin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:36 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer
Cc: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Please see the attached comments.

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

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

From: Joyce Malle [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 11:48 AM
To: Jason Moquin
Subject: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report jason
I would like to offer some public comment regarding the Skyline Heights project I have two concerns, Light Pollution, and reclaimed water.

I would like to have the community adopt and enforce ( along with SCE) a light pollution model zone. This is very importatnt as theis community has wildlife that will be negatively impacted by night time light pollution. You may refer to this link for more information. http://darksky.org/lighting/model-lighting-lawspolicy/recommended-lighting-zones/ Next I would request that the builder work with the DWP to bring the reclaimed ( marked with purple indicators) water to the neighborhood to reduce the impact of utilizing drinking water for landscaping. I would like them to imclude the communtiy of Orchard Glen at least up Trudy way in this endevor.

I am happy to have the homes built. I would like to see the city planning department adopt both of these measures night pollution and reclaimed water for all developments. Possibly the city could work with SCE to get a grant to modigy all the street lights to animal friendly/ star friendly lighting.

Please seriously consider these points.
2 Joyce Malle
[email protected]

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 88
Joyce Malle
[email protected]
Response to Letter 88
Response to Comment 88-1. This comment provides an introduction to the comments contained in this letter, which relate to light pollution and reclaimed water use. Please see Responses to Comments 88-2 through 88-4 below.

Response to Comment 88-2. The commenter suggests that the City has not adequately addressed light pollution associated with the project given the proximity to natural habitat areas. However, as discussed in Section 4.A, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, and in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and RDEIR, light-related impacts (including indirect impacts to wildlife) would be less than significant with implementation of Project Design Features (PDFs). Such PDFs include shielding outdoor lighting such that no off-site light spillage occurs (in accordance with the CMC), discussed on page 4.A-14 of the Draft EIR, as well as PDF BIO-3, Lighting, on page 4.C-41 of the RDEIR, which states the following:

Outdoor lighting of residences will be designed so that all direct beams would be confined to dwelling sites. Project lighting will not intrude into the open space conservation areas. Street lighting, parking lot lighting, and other project-related illumination sources will be positioned, directed, and shielded so as to avoid “light spill” into the conserved areas. The proposed project will avoid any night lighting adjacent to the open space areas. Night lighting will not be used during the course of construction unless absolutely necessary. If necessary, the lights will be directed and shielded to minimize lighting of the surrounding habitat. The level of off-site lighting and lighting fixtures would comply with the applicable requirements and policies of the City of Corona.

With implementation of these PDFs, impacts related to light pollution and off-site light spillage, and related indirect effects, would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 88-3. Reclaimed water service for the project site is addressed in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 4.N-7 therein, a new 12-inch Zone 3 reclaimed water line is proposed as part of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Improvements and would be located in Foothill Parkway from Chase Drive to Serfas Club Drive and in Chase Drive from Foothill Parkway to Skyline Drive. This reclaimed water line is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed project. The project proposes a network of on-site reclaimed water pipelines to serve the project’s HOA and landscaped areas. These areas will be served by a potable water connection until the DWP provides reclaimed water pipelines to the project area. It is anticipated that the reclaimed water system improvements noted above that would serve the project site would be in place prior to initiation of construction activities. As such, and as suggested by the commenter, the project is planned to be served by reclaimed water service for non-potable applications. However, to the extent that the City expands reclaimed water service to areas suggested by the commenter (up Trudy Way to the Orchard Glen community), this is not germane to the EIR or the analysis presented therein. Therefore, no further City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-410
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
comment is warranted.

Response to Comment 88-4. This comment provides a conclusion to the comments provided above in this letter. Please see Responses to Comments 88-1 through 88-3 above.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-411
Jason Moquin
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Good Morning Jason,
PJ Aggabao <[email protected]>
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:22 AM
Jason Moquin
Skyline Heights Project - PLEASE DO NOT MOVE FORWARD
I am writing in hopes that this project will not move forward. As a resident of Corona, I deal with a daily commute to Irvine. I love that the Foothill Westerly Extension is open, I am able to get onto the 241 a little bit quicker, but more and more people are starting to use this road in the mornings. Traffic is loading up at Paseo Grande and Foothill as well as at the Green River on-ramp. Adding 292 single-family homes would elevate the traffic problem even more. It already takes 40-60 mins to get to the 241 toll-road from where I live (Main and Foothill). I would hate to see this number increase.

Thank you,
Patrick Aggabao
1 January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 89
Patrick Aggabao
[email protected]
Response to Letter 89
Response to Comment 89-1. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and suggests that traffic-related impacts of the project will exacerbate traffic conditions in the area. While the commenter provides anecdotal information regarding traffic conditions, and the City acknowledges these concerns, this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the content of the Draft EIR or RDEIR or the analysis or conclusions therein. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-413

3. Corrections and Additions
to the Draft EIR and RDEIR

3. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR AND RDEIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Any corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDEIR”) text and figures generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR and RDEIR text and figures have not been modified to reflect these EIR modifications.

These EIR errata are provided to clarify, refine, and provide supplemental information for the Skyline Heights Project. Changes may be corrections or clarifications to the text and figures of the original Draft EIR and RDEIR. Other changes to the EIR clarify the analysis in the EIR based upon the information and concerns raised by commentors during the public review period. None of the information contained in these EIR modifications constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR or RDEIR.

The information included in this EIR erratum that resulted from the public comment process does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR or RDEIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, Section 15088.5, states in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-1

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

The changes to the Draft EIR and RDEIR included in these EIR modifications do not constitute “significant” new information because:
• No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure;
• There is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the identified significant impacts to a level of insignificance;
• No feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed has been proposed or identified that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and
• The Draft EIR, inclusive of the RDEIR, is not fundamentally or basically inadequate or conclusory in nature such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR or RDEIR is not required because the new information added to the EIR through these modifications clarifies or amplifies information already provided or makes insignificant modifications to the already adequate Draft EIR and RDEIR.

For simplicity, the EIR modifications contained in the following pages are in the same order as the information appears in the Draft EIR and RDEIR. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text has been removed and by double underlining (underline) where text has been added. The applicable page numbers from the Draft EIR or RDEIR, respectively, are also provided where necessary for easy reference.

3.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
The corrections and additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR are presented below. A line through text indicates it has been deleted, while double underlined text is text that has been added.

3.2.1 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
Executive Summary

1. Page ES-4. Modify text in the fifth bullet point from the bottom of the page as follows:
 Impacts associated with access to trails in the project area and adjacent Cleveland National Forest (refer to Section 4.L, Public Services, of this Draft EIR);

2. Pages ES-24 through ES-26. Modify text for Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 in the third column from the left of Table ES-1 as follows:

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-2
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the SB 18 process ("Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Corona Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling: terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps. in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation.

If during cultural resources monitoring the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the qualified archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated.

Native American monitors from affected Tribes shall observe all project-related grading activities, and the treatment of any recovered artifacts shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of a Treatment Agreement between affected Tribes. The Treatment Agreement shall be executed by the consulting Tribes prior to the issuance of grading permits for each construction phase. All cultural materials that are collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility which meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79 for federal repositories. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation.

If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring. At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities on the site take place, the Project Applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and RPA-certified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources/TCRs and assist with avoidance, preservation and/or mitigation per the City's Mitigation Measures on known resources.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-3

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017

1. The Project Archaeologist in consultation with the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Developer and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The Project archeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area: what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program: the protocols ·that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Monitoring Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. c. The coordination of a monitoring schedule as agreed upon by the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Project archaeologist and the applicant;
d. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer. City, Monitoring Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Treatment and Disposition of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this Project and avoidance of the TCRs is not feasible, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to tribal cultural resources. Human remains, sacred/ceremonial items and burial good will be addressed per State Law.

Mitigation Measure CR-1 and the Agreement required in Mitigation Measure CR-1.

The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts as indicated below and provide the City of Corona Community Development Department with evidence of same:

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-4
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR a. Professional curation, including a curation agreement with a qualified repository in Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers upon application. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
b. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Corona, Eastern Information Center and Monitoring Tribe(s).

Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sacred Sites. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

Mitigation Measure CR-5: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving. the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find.

The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin If human remains are determined to be Native American,, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NARC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Treatment and disposition of the remains shall be determined in consultation with the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate disposition of human remains and any associated grave artifacts. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials are confidential and may not be disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC). A Sacred Lands File form will be submitted to the NAHC by the project archaeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-5

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Mitigation Measure CR-26: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified vertebrate to develop a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for excavations into the Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation, the Upper Cretaceous Williams Formation, and Paleocene Silverado Formations. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist is defined as a paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. The qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field assessment to locate fossils at surface exposures. The qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present at such times as required by the paleontologist during construction excavations into the fossiliferous formations mentioned above. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring shall be determined by the paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. If resources are located, monitoring hours shall be increased as needed.

Mitigation Measure CR-37: If a potential fossil is found, the qualified vertebrate paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil, as determined appropriate by the monitor, to assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures may include avoidance or preservation in place, if feasible. If preservation or avoidance of the resource is not feasible, then the resource shall be removed from its location. Removal activities may consist of the relatively rapid removal of small isolated fossils from an active cut, to hand-quarrying of larger fossils over several hours, to excavations of large fossils or large numbers of smaller fossils from a bone bed over several days. These activities may include the assistance of the grading and excavation contractor’s equipment to facilitate removal.

Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County Museum, the John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Curation Center at the California State University, Fullerton, or Western Science Center in Hemet, California.

Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

Mitigation Measure CR-48: Prior to the release of the grading bond, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for approval. In addition, the report shall be submitted to at least one of the repositories mentioned in Mitigation Measure CR-37 and other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-6
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR

3. Page ES-58. Modify text in the left column for Impact 4.I-2 as follows:

The proposed project would result in less than significant land use impacts with regard to consistency with the CNF LMP, CKH Act, SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan, RTP/SCS and Compass Blueprint Growth Vision, and the City of Corona General Plan. With the approval of the requested amendments to the General Plan existing inconsistencies between the General Plan and uses on the project site would be resolved.

Chapter 2 – Project Description

1. Page 2-2. Modify text in the first paragraph under Subsection B, Project Location and Surrounding Uses, as follows:

The location of the project site is shown in Figure 2-1, Regional and Vicinity Map. As shown in Figure 2- 1, the site is located in unincorporated Riverside County, approximately three miles south of State Route 71 (SR-71, Chino Valley Freeway) and SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) and approximately four miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15, Temecula Valley Freeway) along the southwestern boundary of the City of Corona.

The entirety of the project site and annexation area are located within the boundaries of the Cleveland National Forest, but is designated as Non-Forest System Land, which is not subject to the Cleveland National Forest land use regulations. However, the 270.9-acre project site and annexation area are is located adjacent to land designated as Forest Land within the CNF to the west and south. These “Forest Land” areas of the CNF National Forest is are accessed via Skyline Drive, a graded forest service access road to the south of the project site. This road provides recreational hiking and mountain biking opportunities to residents on a local and regional level. The project site and annexation area and also are southwest of the proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension.

2. Page 2-5. Delete entire text in the third full paragraph from the top of the page as follows:

The Cleveland National Forest is located to the west and south of the annexation area and project site.

The National Forest is accessed via Skyline Drive, a graded forest service access road to the south of the project site. This road provides recreational hiking and mountain biking opportunities to residents on a local and regional level.

3. Page 2-11. Modify text in the first full paragraph from the top of the page as follows:

The Westerly Extension alignment passes through portions of the Municipal Water District (MWD) Lower Feeder Easement and Mabey Canyon Debris Basin. The adjusted alignment concept was developed with the goal of minimizing impacts to existing development and environmental resources and avoiding encroachments into the public “Forest Land” portions of the CNF adjacent to the project siteCleveland National Forest. The westerly extension would be a four-lane roadway from its existing terminus approximately 600 feet west of Skyline Drive to Green River Road. At Skyline Drive, the roadway would veer to the west into the unincorporated area of Riverside County and continue in an east/west direction along the City/County boundary. The alignment would then curve to the north and connect to Green River Road in the vicinity of Paseo Grande. The roadway construction would include either two parallel bridge structures or an aboveground arch structure to protect the existing 108-inch Metropolitan Water District (MWD) feeder line approximately 1,000 feet east of Paseo Grande.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-7

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017

4. Page 2-12. Modify text in the first two paragraphs from the top of the page as follows:

The project site is distinguished by two topographic regions divided by Mabey Canyon. The area north of Mabey Canyon consists of approximately 39 acres and the land outside the project boundary is bounded on the west is public “Forest Land” of the Cleveland National Forest. The property northeast of this area by is the proposed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension and on the south by Mabey Canyon. The portion of the project site south of Mabey Canyon consists of approximately 232 acres and is situated near the mouths of Mabey, Tin Mine and Kroonen Canyons. At the south edge this area connects to the south terminus of Trudy Way near existing Tract 31955. An unimproved road leading from Mabey Canyon provides access to the southerly area. Vehicular access however, is limited, owing to the steep topography, which generally increases in elevation from the northeast to the southwest, and lack of maintenance of the road. Elevations over the site range from approximately 945 feet to 1,730 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

The 270.9-acre project site is in an almost natural, undisturbed state. Steep topography with a thin soil mantle has precluded agricultural development common elsewhere in the general area. Very dense chaparral punctuated by sporadic stands of scrub oak covers most slopes. Unimproved roads from Mabey Canyon Road and Mangular Avenue provide access to this area. However, vehicular access is limited because of steep topography and other factors as noted above. Skyline Drive, which abuts the south edge of the annexation area, provides recreational access to the public “Forest Land” portions of the Cleveland National Forest.

Section 4.D – Cultural Resources

4. Page 4.D-15. Modify text in the last paragraph on the page as follows:

Despite the lack of known resources within the site, correspondence from representatives of the Pechanga and Soboba Bands of Luiseño Indians indicates the site has the potential to support previously undiscovered Native American resources. Of particular relevance, Ms. Hoover of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, states that as the site includes dense vegetation, unidentified cultural resources may exist on the site. She states that the location of the site at the base of the Cleveland National Forest/Santa Ana Mountains likely contains a deep accumulation of alluvium which would have covered Luiseño habitations and villages over time. Additionally, she states that there are several drainages that flow from the mountains that would have supplied fresh water to any inhabitants in the area. Thus, the potential for impacting surface and subsurface cultural resources is high. In light of these considerations, it is concluded that unknown significant Native American cultural resources could be unearthed during project excavation activities. The project would involve surface disturbance and grading, and would require trenching for utilities. Grading and trenching as well as other construction ground-disturbing actions have the potential to disturb and destroy cultural resources. Disturbance of significant cultural resources would result in a significant adverse impact. Thus, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 are is prescribed in the event that unknown cultural materials are discovered during construction. Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 also includes provisions for Native American monitors from affected Tribes to observe all project-related grading activities, and the implementation of a Treatment Agreement between affected Tribes. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5, potentially significant impacts to unknown resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-8
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR

5. Page 4.D-16. Modify text in the first paragraph on the page as follows:

Further, given that the City has fulfilled its obligations for Native American Consultation pursuant to SB18 and will continue to work with the Tribes to facilitate monitoring during future site development per Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 to ensure proper treatment of newly discovered resources, impacts to Native American resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

6. Page 4.D-16. Modify text in the paragraph under Impact 4.D-3 on the page as follows:

The paleontological resources assessments for the project found that the fossiliferous Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation and Upper Cretaceous Williams Formation occur on the project site. In addition, the fossiliferous Paleocene Silverado Formation occurs within the project boundaries. These three formations have potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Construction for the project would include grading and excavation for the development of housing pads, access roads, sewers, drains, culverts, and utility-related infrastructure that could impact paleontological resources in these three formations. Disturbance to paleontological resources could result in a potentially significant impact. Thus, Mitigation Measures CR-2 to CR-4 CR-6 through CR-8 have been prescribed to address this potentially significant impact. The mitigation measures require preparation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) to be implemented during construction activities for the project. The PRIMP would provide appropriate treatment measures for paleontological resources potentially impacted by the project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

7. Page 4.D-19. Modify text in the consistency statement in right column of Table 4.D-1 for Policy 4.3.6 as follows:

Consistent. As provided by Mitigation Measure CR-26 below, a qualified paleontological monitor would be present for all site grading activities as determined appropriate by the PRIMP.

8. Page 4.D-18. Modify text in the consistency statement in right column of Table 4.D-1 for Policy 4.3.7 as follows:

Consistent. Mitigation Measures CR-2 to CR-4 CR-6 through CR-8 address potential impacts to paleontological resources. Per the prescribed mitigation measures, a qualified vertebrate paleontologist would be retained by the City or project proponent to determine areas that would require paleontological monitoring during initial ground disturbance. Collected fossils, if any, would be transported to a paleontological laboratory for processing where they would be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation. Following analysis, a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens would be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-9

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017

9. Page 4.D-20 and 21. Modify text of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 as follows:

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the SB 18 process ("Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Corona Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling: terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps. in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring. At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities on the site take place, the Project Applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and RPA-certified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-10
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources/TCRs and assist with avoidance, preservation and/or mitigation per the City's Mitigation Measures on known resources.

2. The Project Archaeologist in consultation with the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Developer and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
e. Project grading and development scheduling;
f. The Project archeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area: what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program: the protocols ·that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Monitoring Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. g. The coordination of a monitoring schedule as agreed upon by the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Project archaeologist and the applicant;
h. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer. City, Monitoring Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

Mitigation Measure CR-1 and the Agreement required in Mitigation Measure CR-1.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-11

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts as indicated below and provide the City of Corona Community Development Department with evidence of same:
a. Professional curation, including a curation agreement with a qualified repository in Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers upon application. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
b. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Corona, Eastern Information Center and Monitoring Tribe(s).

Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sacred Sites. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community and Economic Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NARC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

Treatment and disposition of the remains shall be determined in consultation with the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate disposition of human remains and any associated grave artifacts. In the event that the applicant and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains. State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials are confidential and may not be disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-12
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC). A Sacred Lands File form will be submitted to the NAHC by the project archaeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s).

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

Mitigation Measure CR-48: Prior to the release of the grading bond, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for approval. In addition, the report shall be submitted to at least one of the repositories mentioned in Mitigation Measure CR-37 and City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-13

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.

Section 4.I – Land Use and Planning

1. Page 4.I-2. Modify text in the last paragraph above Subsection b, Regulatory Framework as follows:

The project site and annexation area are located within the boundaries of the Cleveland National Forest is located to the west of the annexation area and project site. However, as discussed further below under Regulatory Framework, the proposed development portion of the site is designated as “Non-Forest System Land”. The National Forest is accessed via Skyline Drive, a graded forest service access road to the south of the project site. This road provides recreational hiking and mountain biking opportunities to residents on a local and regional level.

2. Page 4.I-2. Modify text after the first paragraph under Subsection b, Regulatory Framework as follows:
(1) FederalState
Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan
The revised land and resource management plans (forest plans) for the southern California national forests, which includes the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (CNF LMP), describe the strategic direction at the broad program-level for managing the land and its resources over the next 10 to 15 years.

The strategic direction was developed by an interdisciplinary planning team working with forest staff using extensive public involvement and the best science available.

The revised forest plans have a focus that is different from the old forest plans. The revised forest plans are outcome based and are focused on the condition of the land after project completion rather than the products removed from the land. Each forest plan is directed toward the realization of the desired conditions using strategies that are consistent with the concept of adaptive management and sustainable resource use. The revised forest plans are grounded on the concepts described by the Committee of Scientists in their report, Sustaining the People’s Lands. Paraphrasing the committee’s report, the term sustainability includes three components: ecological, social, and economic. Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

The concept of sustainability is old; its broadened interpretation and redefinition should be viewed as a continuation of the attempt by Gifford Pinchot and others that followed him to articulate the meaning of 'conservation' and 'conservative use' of the lands and waters of the national forests. Therefore, the revised forest plans are designed so that managers have the flexibility to adapt management strategies to the constantly changing demands that are inherent to natural resource management. The strategic direction is expressed through an overall vision of what is wanted, the strategy for accomplishment, and the design criteria that will be used as activities are proposed, analyzed and implemented.

The forest plans were prepared according to the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other laws and regulations. The current forest plans for the southern California national forests were approved between 1986 and 1989. NFMA regulations City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-14
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR require that each forest plan be revised every 10 to 15 years (36 CFR 219.10). The revised forest plans have been prepared to meet that requirement.

The CNF LMP presents a new format, which consists of three interrelated parts that work together to facilitate the use of adaptive management and the development of management activities that will collectively move the national forests toward their desired outcome. Part 1 paints the picture of the vision and conditions desired in the long-term. Parts 2 and 3 contain, respectively, the strategic management direction and the guidance for designing actions and activities in order to make progress toward the vision and desired conditions described in Part 1.
(2) State
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000

3. Page 4.I-4. Modify Subheading 2 at the bottom of the page as follows:
(23) Regional

4. Page 4.I-7. Modify Subheading 2 at the top of the page as follows:
(24) Local

5. Page 4.I-11. Add the following text above Subsection d, Analysis of Project Impacts:
(d) Urban Land/Forest Land Interface
The project site is adjacent to designated Forest Land areas within the CNF, and as such, the following Project Design Feature (PDF) is proposed to minimize conflicts with forest-related activities and resources along the project’s urban/wildland interface:

PDF LU-1: The project applicant will survey and post the location of the private property boundary line where it abuts NFS lands within the project area.

6. Page 4.I-15. Modify text in Impact Statement 4.I-2 as follows:

Impact 4.I-2 The proposed project would result in less than significant land use impacts with regard to consistency with the CNF LMP, CKH Act, SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan, RTP/SCS and Compass Blueprint Growth Vision, and the City of Corona General Plan. With the approval of the requested amendments to the General Plan existing inconsistencies between the General Plan and uses on the project site would be resolved.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-15

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017

7. Page 4.I-15. Modify text in the first paragraph under Impact Statement 4.I-2 as follows:
(a) Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan
The following discussion evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable goals of the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (CNF LMP). For each of the CNF LMP’s goals, the goal text is provided followed by a discussion of the project’s consistency with that goal.

Strategic Goals
Community Protection
Goal 1.1 - Improve the ability of southern California communities to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high intensity wildland fires that are a natural part of this state's ecosystem.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project is located adjacent to designated Forest Land and thus functions as part of the Urban-Wildland Interface. As such, and given the current wildfire hazard risk at the project site irrespective of the adjacent CNF Forest Land, the project design includes fuel modification surrounding the development as well as other features that minimize fire risk associated with the project. While the project is subject to elevated wildfire risks due to its hillside location and associated topography, vegetation, arid climate, and other factors, implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan approved by the Corona Fire Department would be required, as would compliance with applicable sections of the Corona Municipal Code for building construction, which would reduce potential wildfire hazards to acceptable levels. Therefore, while the project would introduce urban development into an area adjacent to CNF Forest Land, implementation of the proposed development would not measurably decrease the ability of the City of Corona or other communities in the area to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high intensity wildland fires.

Restoration of Forest Health
Goal: 1.2 - Restore forest health where alteration of natural fire regimes have put human and natural resource values at risk.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project is located within an area designated in the CNF LMP as “Non-Forest System Land”, and no physical development would occur as part of the proposed project on any areas designated as Forest Land in the LMP. While the project site, once developed, would comprise the edge of the City’s urbanized area and would be contiguous with urban development to the northeast, its development with urban uses would not have any direct effect on forest health.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not preclude forest restoration or otherwise detract from the ability of the USFS to restore forest health in areas of the CNF where alteration of natural fire regimes have put human and natural resource values at risk.

Invasive Species
Goal 2.1 - Reverse the trend of increasing loss of natural resource values due to invasive species.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-16
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project, as discussed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR, provides mitigation measures and project design features to minimize the proliferation of invasive species at the project site and in the surrounding area. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2 requires inspection and removal of invasive and non-native plants from preserved habitat areas on-site as well as performance criteria for success, including provision for control of nonnative and invasive species; Mitigation Measure BIO-MM15 requires that invasive plants identified in the County’s MSHCP should be removed from open space areas; and Project Design Feature BIO-5 requires that design guidelines be provided to homeowners in order to prohibit planting of invasive species.

Managed Recreation in a Natural Setting
Goal 3.1 - Provide for Public Use and Natural Resource Protection Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project is located outside of designated Forest Land areas, and would not hinder access to the CNF via the existing Skyline Trail adjacent to the property.

While no other dedicated public trails are located on the project site or annexation area, the applicant has committed to working with the community to develop a Trails Master Plan to improve trail access and facilities at the project site. While implementation of the proposed Trails Master Plan would not directly affect CNF Forest Land, it would facilitate public access to trails in the area, some of which provide access to designated CNF Forest Land areas and facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in the Draft EIR and RDEIR, the project would not result in significant impacts to natural resources, including biological resources, jurisdictional features, cultural resources, or agriculture or forestry resources.

Thus, the project would not limit access to public use areas within the CNF, which would be further enhanced with implementation of the proposed Trails Master Plan, and would also not result in significant impacts to natural resources with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

Wilderness
Goal 3.2 - Retain a Natural Evolving Character within Wilderness.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The project site’s interface with adjacent CNF Forest Land would be delineated by signage, and where feasible, the project will provide a continuous connection with natural open space in areas directly adjacent to on-site habitat preservation. As noted above, the project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and would not have any direct effects on adjacent or nearby wilderness areas within the CNF. Thus, the project would not hinder USFS efforts to retain a natural evolving character within wilderness areas of the CNF.

Energy and Minerals Production
Goal 4.1a - Administer Minerals and Energy Resource Development while protecting ecosystem health.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-17

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 Project Consistency: Not Applicable. The proposed project does not contain known mineral resources and is not located within a designated mineral resource area. Thus, the proposed project would have no effect on the ability of the USFS to administer minerals and energy resource development while protecting ecosystem health.

Goal 4.1b - Administer Renewable Energy Resource developments while protecting ecosystem health.

Project Consistency: Not Applicable. While it is possible that homes within the proposed development could utilize solar panels or other forms of renewable energy, the proposed project would have no effect on the ability of the USFS to administer renewable energy resource developments while protecting ecosystem health.

Watershed Function
Goal 5.1 - Improve watershed conditions through cooperative management.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project would provide mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional features on the project site, as discussed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR, and thus impacts to on-site watersheds would be less than significant. Mitigation for watershed impacts on-site would be subject to approval by various public agencies, including the Santa Ana RWQCB, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While the project would result in direct effects to on-site drainages, for which mitigation is necessary, its implementation would not have any effect on upstream watersheds within CNF Forest Land areas.

Riparian Condition
Goal 5.2 - Improve riparian conditions.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project would provide mitigation for impacts to riparian/riverine resources on the project site, as discussed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR, and thus impacts to on-site riparian resources would be less than significant. Mitigation for riparian/riverine resource impacts on-site would be subject to approval by various public agencies, including the Santa Ana RWQCB, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While the project would result in direct effects to on-site riparian conditions, for which mitigation is necessary, its implementation would not have any effect on riparian conditions within CNF Forest Land areas further upstream.

Rangeland Condition
Goal 6.1 - Move toward improved rangeland conditions as indicated by key range sites.

Project Consistency: Not Applicable. The proposed project is not located in proximity to key range sites. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have no adverse effect on rangeland conditions in the CNF.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-18
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR Biological Resource Condition
Goal 6.2 - Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project would provide mitigation for impacts to special-status species and habitats on the project site, as discussed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR, and thus impacts to on-site populations of sensitive species would be less than significant.

Mitigation for species and habitat impacts on-site would be subject to approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While the project would result in direct and indirect effects to on-site species and habitats, its implementation would not have any significant effects on such resources within CNF Forest Land areas given implementation of required mitigation measures.

Natural Areas in an Urban Context
Goal 7.1 - Retain natural areas as a core for a regional network while focusing the built environment into the minimum land area needed to support growing public needs.

Project Consistency: Consistent. The proposed project once developed, would comprise the edge of the City’s urbanized area and would be contiguous with urban development to the northeast. While the project would develop currently undeveloped land with urban uses adjacent to CNF Forest Land areas, the project would also preserve a large portion of the property as natural open space, and implement a wide array of mitigation measures and project design features in order to minimize edge effects along the project’s interface with adjacent CNF Forest Land and nearby wilderness areas. Thus, the project would focus development on only a portion of the property and would implement a series of measures to limit adverse effects to the adjacent natural areas and provide habitat connections to the larger contiguous CNF wilderness.
(b) Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000

8. Page 4.I-16. Modify text in the first sentence of the third full paragraph as follows:

With regard to agricultural preserves, lands within the annexation area are not contained within agricultural preserves. However, 86.23 acres would be zoned Agriculture and 37.61 acres would be zoned Open Space.

Under the proposed zoning, approximately 64.368.6 percent of the annexation area (394.8 acres) would be developed and 35.3931.4 percent would be retained as agricultural or open space land.

9. Page 4.I-18. Modify text in Subheading (b) as follows:
(bc) SCAG Regional Plans and Programs

10. Page 4.I-19. Modify text in Subheading (c) as follows:
(cd) City of Corona General Plan

11. Page 4.I-25. Modify text in the last paragraph on the page as follows:

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-19

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 Development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in cumulatively significant land use impacts relative to compliance with the applicable objectives, goals, principles, policies, actions or standards of the CNF LMP, SCAG RCP, SCAG RTP/SCS, SCAG Compass Blueprint Growth Vision, City of Corona General Plan, or City of Corona Municipal Code. Any current and future development projects within the City of Corona would be subject to environmental review on a project-by-project basis to evaluate consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations as well as the potential to divide a community or conflict with applicable conservation plans. As part of environmental review of individual projects, mitigation would be provided to address any physical impacts due to plan inconsistency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to land use impacts associated with dividing a community or plan inconsistencies and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

3.2.2 Corrections and Additions to the RDEIR
Executive Summary

1. Page ES-4. Modify text in the seventh bullet point from the top of the page as follows:

Impacts associated with access to trails in the project area and adjacent Cleveland National Forest (refer to Section 4.L, Public Services, of this Draft EIR);

2. Pages ES-13 and ES-14. Modify text of Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2 as follows:

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 City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-20
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR 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.

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,

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.

3. Page ES-14. Modify text of Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3 as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall preserve a minimum of 10 acres (a 1:1 ratio) of natural habitat, biologically equivalent or superior to the PQP land the City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-21

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017 project site surrounds, adjacent to USFS land. The compensation parcel shall either be placed under a deed restriction or the deed may be transferred as agreed to prevent future development.:

1. Deeded in fee title to the USFS or RCA to ensure appropriate protection and permanent habitat management in perpetuity, or

2. Conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-due diligence approved local conservation entity.

4. Page ES-14. Modify text of Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4 as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4. Those areas of the project site not impacted by the project footprint, including Riparian/Riverine and excluding the minimum 10-acre preservation area identified in BIO-MM3, shall be designated as open space conserved in perpetuity via the recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-approved local conservation entity; or transferred in fee title to a CDFWapproved local conservation entity. The open space avoided Riparian/Riverine areas shall be deed restricted conserved prior to issuance of a grading permit, and will be dedicated to the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) at the time of the recordation of the final map. The HOA CDFW-approved local conservation entity shall manage the open space conservation areas to protect the long-term conservation, functions and values in-perpetuityaccording to the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions, which shall restrict future impact and uses of open space areas.

Section 4.C – Biological Resources

1. Page 4.C-71 and 72. Modify text of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 as follows:

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, City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-22
January 2017 3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR 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.

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,

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.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-23

3. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR January 2017

2. Page 4.C-72. Modify text of Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3 as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall preserve a minimum of 10 acres (a 1:1 ratio) of natural habitat, biologically equivalent or superior to the PQP land the project site surrounds, adjacent to USFS land. The compensation parcel shall either be placed under a deed restriction or the deed may be transferred as agreed to prevent future development.:

1. Deeded in fee title to the USFS or RCA to ensure appropriate protection and permanent habitat management in perpetuity, or

2. Conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-due diligence approved local conservation entity.

3. Page 4.C-72. Modify text of Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4 as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4. Those areas of the project site not impacted by the project footprint, including Riparian/Riverine and excluding the minimum 10-acre preservation area identified in BIO-MM3, shall be designated as open space conserved in perpetuity via the recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFWapproved local conservation entity; or transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. The open space avoided Riparian/Riverine areas shall be deed restricted conserved prior to issuance of a grading permit, and will be dedicated to the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) at the time of the recordation of the final map. The HOA CDFW-approved local conservation entity shall manage the open space conservation areas to protect the long-term conservation, functions and values in-perpetuityaccording to the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions, which shall restrict future impact and uses of open space areas.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 3-24

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for use in implementing mitigation for the Skyline Heights Project. The program has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003) prepared for the proposed project by the City of Corona.

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken, and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program.

As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.

This MMRP includes mitigation identified in the Initial Study and the Final EIR.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As the Lead Agency, the City of Corona is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities.

Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the Applicant, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of project implementation it is discovered that the Applicant, Contractor, or other responsible party has failed to implement any of the required mitigation measures, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the proposed project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-1

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2017

4.3 MMRP PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project File Name: Skyline Heights Project
Applicant: Richland Developers, Inc.

Date: January 2017
Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM1. The project impact
areas and avoidance areas shall be flagged or fenced prior to clearing to prevent incursion into unsurveyed or
avoided areas.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
site clearing
or grading
activities for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit, site
clearing or
grading
activities for
each phase of
development
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading
permit
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
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
site clearing
or grading
activities for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit, site
clearing or
grading
activities for
each phase of
development
Review of
conservation
plans by
project
biologist and
mitigation
planting plan,
conservation
easement, or
deed
restriction;
and On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-2
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
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 CDFWapproved 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, longterm 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
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-3

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,

3. qualifications of the monitoring biologist. At
a minimum the monitoring biologist will
possess a minimum of five-year's
experience conducting habitat restoration
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-4
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
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.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-5

1. Deeded in fee title to the USFS or RCA to ensure
appropriate protection and permanent habitat
management in perpetuity, or

2. Conserved via recordation of a conservation
easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFWdue diligence approved local conservation entity.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
site clearing
or grading
activities for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit, site
clearing or
grading
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
conservation
easement or
deed
restriction;
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4. Those areas of the
project site not impacted by the project footprint,
including Riparian/Riverine and excluding the minimum
10-acre preservation area identified in BIO-MM3, shall be conserved in perpetuity via the recordation of a
conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-approved local conservation entity; or transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity.

The avoided Riparian/Riverine areas shall be conserved
prior to issuance of a grading permit. The CDFWapproved local conservation entity shall manage the conservation areas to protect the long-term conservation, functions and values in-perpetuity.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
site clearing
or grading
activities for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit, site
clearing or
grading
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
conservation
easement or
deed
restriction;
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-6
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5. The project Applicant
shall add more common cultivar forms of Coulter’s
matilija poppy to the list of plants to be avoided in site landscaping, including White Cloud matilija poppy.

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

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits
Prior to
issuance of
the first
building
permit for the
production
units and
review of
HOA
landscape
plans.

Review of
CC&Rs; Onsite inspection
Withhold
building
permit
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM6. The project Applicant
shall replace oak trees impacted by the project at a ratio consistent with the City of Corona oak tree conservancy policy (10.10.5), at no less than a 2:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be located in undeveloped natural areas
suitable to support these trees or in onsite mitigation areas where possible. If spacing requirements limit the number of replacement trees in these areas additional
plantings may be located in landscaped areas as close to open space as feasible. All replacement trees shall be
planted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Review of
HOA
landscape
plans and
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
On-site
inspection
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM7. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the project Applicant shall provide
mitigation for 10.07 acres of Riparian/Riverine impacts at a 2:1 basis, as determined through consultation with the City of Corona and wildlife agencies based on an
MSHCP evaluation of functions and values analysis. The
project Applicant proposes mitigation in the form of
offsite mitigation with the Riverside-Corona Resource
Conservation District (RCRCD) or other suitable
approved organization with available credits. Currently, mitigation in banks is favored to preserve large areas of City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Review of
mitigation
credits,
conservation
easement or
deed
restriction;
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-7

If onsite mitigation is proposed as an alternative, the project Applicant shall prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for review and approval by local and
regulatory agencies, which shall include the following
components:
• Quantitative success criteria (vegetation cover
and species richness);
• Recommendations for soil preparation;
• A plant palette to include native species
occurring on the site, such as coast live oak and
Coulter’s matilija poppy;
• Planting methods;
• Irrigation and maintenance requirements; and
A long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring plan
with remedial measures.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM8. Prior to the first
ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
or SWPPP, employing all standard best management
practices (BMPs) to prevent discharges from entering
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
site clearing
for each
phase of
development
Prior to site
clearing for
each phase of
development
Review of
SWPPP
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-8
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
WoUS during construction. BMPs shall include but not be limited to:
• Use of erosion control or sedimentation
prevention methods, such as fiber rolls, sand
bags, rice mats, straw wattles, or similar
measures, where appropriate; and
• Proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel
fuel, antifreeze, and other toxic substances will
be enforced.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM9. Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of 1.57 acres of non-wetland WoUS due to project construction, project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the U. S.

Army Corps of Engineers (via issuance and
implementation of a Nationwide permit or Individual
permit) and with the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (via issuance and implementation of a
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification) to replace
affected WoUS and wetlands at a ratio specified by the U.

S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, but at not less than a 2:1 basis, through offsite acquisition and preservation,
participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of WoUS or a combination of these options. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Agreements
and
regulatory
permits
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-9

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Review of
Agreements/
permits
Withhold
grading
permit
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
-Planning
Division
Once at plan
check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
Once prior to
construction
activities in
undisturbed
areas for
each phase
of
development
Plan check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
Prior to
construction
activities in
undisturbed
areas for each
phase of
development
Review of
nesting bird
survey if done
during
nesting
season.

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit; Halt
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-10
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM12. A pre-construction
burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 30 days before earth
disturbance (construction). The survey will be conducted as close to the actual construction initiation date as
possible. If owls are present, the project biologist will consult with local and state agencies, as appropriate, and develop a mitigation plan. Mitigation will be based on the following goals and requirements included in the MSHCP:

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 three (3)
pairs of burrowing owls, the onsite burrowing
owls will be passively or actively relocated
following accepted protocols.
a. Occupied nests shall be avoided
during the nesting season
(February 1 – August 31) and a
buffer of 300 to 500 feet shall be
employed, depending on the
level of disturbance
surrounding the burrow.
b. Burrow exclusion shall be
utilized outside of the nesting
season by installing a one-way
door in burrow openings. The
burrow shall be closed following
verification burrows are empty
(through site monitoring and
scoping).

2. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports
three (3) or more pairs of burrowing owls,
supports greater than 35 acres of suitable
habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSHCP
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once within
30 days
prior to
construction
activities in
undisturbed
areas for
each phase
of
development
Within 30
days prior to
construction
activities in
undisturbed
areas for each
phase of
development
Proof of
burrowing
owl survey. .

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permits
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-11

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
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
first
production
unit.

Proof of
program
documents
and CC&Rs
and
placement of
information at
model home
complex.

Withhold
Certificates of
Occupancy
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
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
At least once
prior to site
clearing
activities in
undisturbed
areas for
each phase
of
development
Prior to site
clearing
activities in
undisturbed
areas for each
phase of
development
the project
applicant
shall
demonstrate
to the
Planning
Division that
On-site
inspection by
project
biologist and
report of
findings
submitted to
the Planning
Division.

Halt
construction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-12
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
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.
a project
biologist has
been retained
during initial
on-site
disturbance
activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM15. Design guidelines for
the proposed project shall provide the new homeowners
with a list of native landscaping materials permitted
within the development area. These materials have been
selected for their contribution to the project theme,
adaptability to local climatic and soil conditions, and for their compatibility with the unique natural environment in the area. None of the plants listed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP will be utilized in the development and their use by future homeowners will be prohibited. The
MSHCP has identified invasive plants that should be
removed from open space areas. This list is included in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP and in Appendix C, and shall be
included in the CC&Rs prepared for the subdivision.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to
issuance of
first
Certificate of
Occupancy
for
production
units
Proof of
design
guidelines
and CC&Rs
Withhold
Certificates of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM16. All heavy equipment
used onsite shall be washed, particularly the wheels and under carriage, prior to bringing it onto the project site from other construction sites to prevent the spread of
weedy species.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once at plan
check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
As needed
during
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
Note on
grading plans.

Plan check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
At least once
during
construction
of each phase
of
development
Review of
construction
bid
documents;
on-site
inspection.

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit; Halt
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-13

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once at plan
check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
As needed
during
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
Note on
grading plans.

Plan check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
At least once
during
construction
of each phase
of
development
Review of
construction
bid
documents;
on-site
inspection.

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit; Halt
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM18. All refuse created or
brought onsite by clearing personnel or contractors shall be placed in covered containers, removed from the site
daily, and disposed of properly.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once at plan
check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
As needed
during
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
Note on
grading plans.

Plan check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
At least once
during
construction
of each phase
of
development
Review of
construction
bid
documents;
on-site
inspection.

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit; Halt
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM19. Field crews shall
maintain the speed limit on posted roads and limit
vehicle/truck speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once at plan
check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
As needed
during
construction
activities for
Note on
grading plans.

Plan check
(review of
construction
bid
documents);
At least once
during
construction
Review of
construction
bid
documents;
on-site
inspection.

Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit; Halt
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-14
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
each phase
of
development
of each phase
of
development
Mitigation Measure BIO-MM20. The proposed project
shall incorporate measures to meet MSHCP
Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines and requirements.

These measures will address Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Barriers, Access, Pets, and Grading/Land
Development (See Section 9.5 of the BRA Report included in Appendix D to this Draft EIR).

Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
once prior to
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Review of
Project plans,
construction
documents,
and on-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; halt
construction;
withhold
Certificate of
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-15

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2017 Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
of water into open space areas that are of lower quality or higher quality than current conditions. The proposed
development shall incorporate measures, including
measures required through the NPDES requirements, to
ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the open space area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular,
measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of
untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into open space areas. Stormwater systems shall be
designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals,
petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other
elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within open space areas. This will be accomplished using a variety of methods including
natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical
trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to
ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
or as
necessary
during
construction
(constructio
n measures);
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
(construction
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Occupancy
PDF BIO-2, Toxics – The proposed project is designed to utilize natural drainage patterns for the flow of surface water. Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)
include education, storm drain stenciling, and street
sweeping in compliance with the City of Corona’s
requirements. The earthen channel shall be signed to
filter potential toxics in the storm water prior to its discharge into open space areas. These BMPs will be
implemented as part of the storm water pollution
prevention measures for the project, in accordance with all appropriate NPDES requirements. The project would
result in the additional use of hazardous materials in
limited quantities associated with normal residential use such as cleaning products, solvents, herbicides, and
insecticides. However, compliance with regulations will reduce the potential risk of hazardous material exposure to a level that is less than significant. An information pamphlet has been prepared for each homeowner
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
or as
necessary
during
construction
(constructio
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
(construction
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
Review of
Project plans,
construction
documents,
and on-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; halt
construction;
withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-16
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
regarding the use of toxics. n measures);
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
phase of
development
PDF BIO-3, Lighting – Outdoor lighting of residences will be designed so that all direct beams would be confined to dwelling sites. Project lighting will not intrude into the open space conservation areas. Street lighting, parking lot lighting, and other project-related illumination sources will be positioned, directed, and shielded so as to avoid “light spill” into the conserved areas. The proposed
project will avoid any night lighting adjacent to the open space areas. Night lighting will not be used during the course of construction unless absolutely necessary. If
necessary, the lights will be directed and shielded to
minimize lighting of the surrounding habitat. The level of off-site lighting and lighting fixtures would comply with the applicable requirements and policies of the City of Corona.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Review of
Project plans;
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit;
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-5, Invasives – Exotic Vegetation Control –
Design guidelines for the project will provide the
homeowners with a list of native landscaping materials
permitted within the project site. These materials have been selected for their contribution to the project theme, adaptability to local climatic and soil conditions, and for their compatibility with the unique natural environment in the project site. The MSHCP has identified exotic
invasive plants that should be areas avoided adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area in Table 6-2, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP; none of these plants will be utilized for the proposed project and their use by future homeowners
will be prohibited.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
or as
necessary
during
construction
(constructio
n measures);
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
(construction
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Review of
Project plans,
construction
documents,
and on-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; halt
construction;
withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-18
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
for each
phase of
development
PDF BIO-6, Barriers – The proposed project will include theme walls along project perimeter streets adjacent to public streets, and will include walls and fencing located where public view and/or important interfaces are of
concern. The proposed project will incorporate special
edge treatments designed to separate development areas
from open space areas. These areas of native landscaping and fencing will serve to minimize unauthorized public
access, domestic animals predation, and illegal trespass and dumping. Exclusion fencing will be permanently
placed where development abuts avoided and adjacent
open space areas. The exclusion fence will be a minimum of eight feet in height and will be installed and maintained for the purposed of controlling human and pet access
(cats and dogs) into the open space area and be in
compliance with MSHCP requirements. The fencing will
be permanent and will be maintained in perpetuity.

Approval of the fencing design will be required by the City of Corona prior to project initiation.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Once prior to
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Review of
Project plans;
On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit;
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-19

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
On-site
inspection
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
PDF BIO-9, Grading/Land Development – All
manufactured slopes associated with site development
will be within the project site and there will be no impact to the MSHCP Conservation Area. All manufactured
slopes that abut the natural open space will be retained as open space buffer zones. All manufactured slopes and
areas disturbed by construction of these slopes will be revegetated with appropriate non-invasive buffer species during project construction.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
once prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
or as
necessary
during
construction
(constructio
n measures);
Once prior to
issuance of
Plan check
(project
designrelated
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
(construction
measures);
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Review of
Project
grading plans;
on-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit;
withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-20
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Tribal Monitoring. Prior
to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the SB 18 process ("Monitoring Tribes”). The
applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of
Corona Planning Department prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The Agreement shall address the
treatment of any known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project's approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities;
project grading and development scheduling: terms of
compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per
the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s
mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal
Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect
grading in the immediate area of a find in order to
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next
steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

If changes are made to the project footprint to include earth-moving activities in areas not previously studied, additional archaeological investigations shall be required.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

At least once
prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Tribal
Monitoring
Agreement(s)
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-21

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2017 Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological
Monitoring. At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation
and/or ground disturbing activities on the site take place, the Project Applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and RPA-certified archaeological
monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological
resources/TCRs and assist with avoidance, preservation
and/or mitigation per the City's Mitigation Measures on known resources.
a. The Project Archaeologist in consultation with the
Monitoring Tribe(s), the Developer and the City, shall
develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan
(CRMP) to address the details, timing and
responsibility of all archaeological and cultural
activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the Plan shall include:
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. The Project archeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the
construction manager and any contractors and will
conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker
Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The
Training will include a brief review of the cultural
sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area:
what resources could potentially be identified during
earthmoving activities; the requirements of the
monitoring program: the protocols that apply in the
event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources
are identified, including who to contact and
appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can
be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate
protocols. All new construction personnel that begin
work on the Project following the initial Training
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

At least once
within 30
days prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
At least 30
days prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Proof of
retention/
contract
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-22
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to
beginning work and the Project archaeologist and
Monitoring Tribe(s) shall make themselves available
to provide the training on an as-needed basis.
d. The coordination of a monitoring schedule as agreed
upon by the Monitoring Tribe(s), the Project
archaeologist and the applicant;
e. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer.

City, Monitoring Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist
will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural
resources discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be
subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Treatment and Disposition
of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Tribal
Cultural Resources (TCRs) are inadvertently discovered
during the course of grading for this Project and
avoidance of the TCRs is not feasible, the following
procedures will be carried out for treatment and
disposition of the discoveries:

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

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s)
shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including all archaeological artifacts and non-human
remains as part of the required mitigation for
impacts to tribal cultural resources. Human remains,
sacred/ceremonial items and burial good will be
addressed per State Law. Mitigation Measure CR-1
and the Agreement required in Mitigation Measure
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Tribal
Monitoring
Agreement(s)
and
Monitoring
Report(s)
Withhold
grading or
building
permit/ halt
construction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-23

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-24
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sacred Sites. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Monitoring
Report(s)
Withhold
grading or
building
permit/ halt
construction
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Discovery of Human
Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains
that may be human) are discovered at the project site
during grading or earthmoving. the construction
contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated
Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all
activities within 100 feet of the find. The project
applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Corona Community and Economic
Development Department immediately, and the coroner
shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin If human
remains are determined to be Native American,, the
applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NARC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC
will make the determination of most likely descendant(s).

The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48
hours of being granted access to the site. Treatment and disposition of the remains shall be determined in
consultation with the most likely descendant(s) to
determine the most appropriate disposition of human
remains and any associated grave artifacts. In the event City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Monitoring
Report(s)
Withhold
grading or
building
permit/ halt
construction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-25

The specific locations of Native American burials and
reburials are confidential and may not be disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the Eastern Information Center (EIC). A Sacred Lands File
form will be submitted to the NAHC by the project
archaeologist and the Monitoring Tribe(s).

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitutes a
cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native
American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Mitigation Measure CR-6: Prior to issuance of any
grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified
vertebrate to develop a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) for excavations into the
Upper Cretaceous Ladd Canyon Formation, the Upper
Cretaceous Williams Formation, and Paleocene Silverado
Formations. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist is
defined as a paleontologist meeting the criteria
established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology.

The qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field assessment to locate fossils at
surface exposures. The qualified vertebrate
paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present at such times as required by the
paleontologist during construction excavations into the fossiliferous formations mentioned above. Monitoring
shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate,
collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of
City of Corona
-Planning
Division
At least once
prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
Issuance of
grading
permit for
each phase of
development
Proof of
PRIMP
Withhold
grading
permit
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-26
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The
frequency of monitoring shall be determined by the
paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of
excavation and grading activities, the materials being
excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. If resources are located, monitoring hours shall be increased as
needed.

Mitigation Measure CR-7: If a potential fossil is found, the qualified vertebrate paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the
exposed fossil, as determined appropriate by the monitor, to assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment
measures may include avoidance or preservation in place, if feasible. If preservation or avoidance of the resource is not feasible, then the resource shall be removed from its location. Removal activities may consist of the relatively rapid removal of small isolated fossils from an active cut, to hand-quarrying of larger fossils over several hours, to excavations of large fossils or large numbers of smaller fossils from a bone bed over several days. These
activities may include the assistance of the grading and excavation contractor’s equipment to facilitate removal.

Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino
County Museum, the John D. Cooper Archaeological and
Paleontological Curation Center at the California State University, Fullerton, or Western Science Center in
Hemet, California. Accompanying notes, maps, and
photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
As necessary
during
grading and
construction
activities for
each phase of
development
Proof of
Monitoring
Report(s) or
on-site
inspection
Halt
Construction
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-27

The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the
Community Development Director or his/her designee
for approval. In addition, the report shall be submitted to at least one of the repositories mentioned in Mitigation Measure CR-7 and other appropriate or concerned
agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the
project and required mitigation measures.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Site Preparation and
Removals. All grading shall be accomplished under the
observation and testing of the Project Geotechnical
Engineer and Engineering Geologist in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the Project
Geotechnical Report, contained in Appendix F of this
Draft EIR), the current codes practiced by the City of
Corona and the Earthwork Specifications contained in
Appendix IV of the Project Geotechnical Report.

Loose, compressible residual soil, non-engineered onsite fill, colluvium, alluvium, landslide debris, older alluvium and weathered bedrock shall be removed from fill areas
prior to placement of fill and shall be removed from
shallow cut areas, where exposed at finish grades.

Guidelines to determine the depth of removals are
presented below; however, the exact extent of the
removals must be determined in the field during grading, when observation and evaluation of the greater detail
afforded by those exposures can be performed by the
Geotechnical engineer and/or Engineering Geologist.

The minimum backcut ratio shall be 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical). The bottoms of all removal areas shall be
City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading
activities
Review of
engineering
reports/
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-28
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
observed, mapped and approved by the Engineering
Geologist prior to fill placement. It is recommended that the bottoms of removals be surveyed and documented by
the Project Civil Engineer.

Groundwater, if encountered during grading, shall be
evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or
Engineering Geologist. In general, groundwater is not
anticipated to adversely affect grading although saturated soils and free water may be encountered along canyons
and within alluvium removals. If groundwater is
excessive, remedial measures such as horizontal drains or under drains may need to be installed. Further,
settlement monuments and plates (see Plate VI of the
Geotechnical Report) shall be installed during and after completion of grading to monitor settlement monuments
and plates shall be used to determine when the majority of the primary settlement has been completed to allow
for the release of affected lots for construction.
• Stripping: Vegetation, debris and other deleterious
materials are unsuitable as structural fill material and shall be disposed of offsite prior to commencing
removals and placement of compacted fills. The thick,
natural vegetative growth onsite is significant and will require consideration for removal. An onsite
mulching operation may be considered. The mulched
materials could then be used in future landscape
areas.
• Soil and Weathered Bedrock (unmapped): Loose,
compressible onsite soils and underlying weathered
bedrock shall be removed to expose the underlying
competent bedrock materials prior to placement of
compacted fill and when exposed in shallow cut area.

An average removal depth of 5 feet is anticipated for
removal of topsoil and weathered bedrock. In general,
onsite soils and weathered bedrock are suitable to be
re-used as structural fill when properly moistureCity of Corona Skyline Heights Project PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-29

Other fills, including roadway fills and trench backfill, are not mapped due to their localized extent and
minor thickness. Removals shall extend below the
undocumented fill until competent materials are
encountered.
• Alluvium/Colluvium (map symbol Qal): All alluvium
deposits exposed at existing or cut grades shall be
entirely removed prior to fill placement. These
deposits range in thickness from approximately 5 feet
to 35 feet. Ginter and Associates recommends that all
alluvial and colluvial soils below proposed fill areas
and in cut areas be removed to expose competent
bedrock or terrace deposits. Anticipated average
removal depths for alluvium/colluvium areas are
expected to vary to an estimated maximum thickness
of 35 feet.

Groundwater was not encountered during PSE's
subsurface investigation within the alluvium onsite.

However, access was limited and certain alluvial areas
could not be investigated such as within Krooner
Canyon. If "saturated" alluvium is encountered that
possesses a degree of saturation of 85% of more and is
consistent with depth to bedrock, consideration may
be given to leaving the saturated alluvium in-place,
provided that settlement time-delay consequences are
acceptable to the owner. If saturated alluvium is
encountered and is going to remain in-place, an
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-30
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
additional liquefaction investigation may be required
and dynamic settlement recommendations for those
areas will likely change.
• Older Alluvium (Qoa): All older alluvium shall be
removed to expose the underlying competent bedrock.

Generally, these deposits range in depth from 10 to
about 20 feet.
• Landslide Debris (Qls): All landslide debris that
could adversely affect the proposed development shall
be removed to expose the underlying competent
bedrock. Generally, these deposits range in depth
from 10 to about 29 feet, but may range up to around
35 feet in depth.
• Removals Along Grading Limits: Removals of
unsuitable soils shall be required prior to fill
placement along the grading limit. A 1:1 projection,
from toe of slope or grading limit, outward to
competent materials shall be established, when
possible. Where removals are not possible due to
grading limits, property line or easement restrictions, removals shall be initiated at the grading boundary
(property line easement, grading limit or outside the
improvement) at a 1:1 ratio inward to competent
materials. Where this reduced removal criterion is
implemented, special maintenance zones may be
necessary. Affected areas shall be established,
minimally, as a 1:1 projection from suitable removal
bottom to finish ground surface. This condition is
mainly expected in the slope areas. Where the
projection intersects the face of the slope, the
potential for distortion of the slope in response to
post-grading settlements exists and provisions for
future maintenance of such slopes shall be provided.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-31

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2017 Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Slope Stability and
Remediation
• Cut Slopes: The majority of cut slopes have been
designed at a slope ratio of 2:1. The Engineering
Geologist shall observe cut slopes and cut slope
stabilization backcuts during grading. Modifications
to the recommendations presented herein will likely
be required based upon conditions exposed by
grading.
• Williams Formation (KW): Cut slopes within the
Williams Formation may expose adverse bedding that
shall require remediation. The cut slope superjacent
to Lots 278 and 279 is anticipated to require
replacement with a buttress fill. Probable buttresses
are anticipated for the cut slope above Lots 261
through 267 and the cut slope below the WQMP Basin
and Lots 247 through 255, as depicted on Figure 1 and
Figure 2 (pocket) of the Geotechnical Report.
• Ladd Formation: Cut slopes within the Ladd
Formation may expose adverse bedding that shall
require remediation. The majority of the cut slopes
should expose bedding dipping into the slope or at an
angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes (greater
than 60 degrees). Cut slopes within the Ladd
Formation that expose bedding dipping into the slope
or at an angle steeper than the proposed cut slopes are expected to be grossly stable; however, the final
determination shall be made based on exposed
conditions during grading. Cut slopes within the Ladd
Formation may expose conglomerate resulting in
poorly cemented sands, cobbles and boulders at finish
grade, producing a rough uneven surface. These cut
slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project
Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.

Replacement of those slopes with compacted
City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading
activities
Review of
engineering
reports/plans
; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-32
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
stabilization fills may be required. Future exploration and in-grading observation could reveal more
favorable geology in these specific areas.
• Alluvium/Colluvium: Cut slopes exposing
alluvial/colluvial soils (Qal) shall require replacement with a drained stabilization fill. Typically, such
corrective grading would be constructed with a
minimum key width corresponding to one-half the full
height of the superjacent slope, but not less than 15
feet. Minimum key depths at the toe shall be 2 feet.

All stabilization fills shall be provided with a
backdrain and outlet system as detailed in Appendix
IV of the Geotechnical Report.
• Silverado Formation: Cut slopes within the Silverado
Formation are expected to be grossly stable; however
the final determination shall be made based on
exposed conditions during grading. Cut slopes within
the Silverado Formation may expose poorly cemented
sands, cobbles and boulders at finish grade, which
would produce a rough uneven surface. These cut
slopes shall be evaluated in the field by the Project
Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.

Replacement of those slopes with compacted
stabilization fills may be required.
• Fill Slopes: The majority of fill slopes on the project are designed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1. The
highest fill slope is approximately 160 feet in height
and located subjacent to Lot 68. Based on the results
of the calculations, the 2:1 fill slopes 160 feet and less in height, when properly constructed with onsite
materials, are expected to be grossly stable, as
designed. Keys shall be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes where unsuitable soil removals do not
accomplish a minimum key width of one-half the slope
height plus bench widths or twenty (20) feet,
whichever is greater. Minimum key depths at the toe
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-33

Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Subsurface Drainage.

Canyon subdrains are proposed as depicted on Figures 1
through 7 of the Geotechnical Report and shall consist of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter pipes and shall be
constructed in accordance with the details shown in
Appendix IV of the Geotechnical Report. Final
determination of drain locations shall be made in the
field. Outletting of subdrain systems shall require
coordination with the Project Civil Engineer in
determining suitable facilities to accept to drain water.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Anticipated transition lots are shown on figures 1-7 of the geotechnical report. Cut pads shall be overexcavated a
minimum of 5 feet to provide a uniform foundation
material. Some highly expansive soils of the silverado
formation may be encountered at grade in some areas.

Consideration shall be given to increasing the
overexcavation depth to mitigate for highly expansive
soils, if warranted. Difficult excavation with a backhoe can be expected in some street areas. Ginter & associates recommends street overexcavation and replacement with
compacted fill to facilitate utility emplacement in these street areas and driveways. Depths of overexcavation
shall extend one (1) foot below the deepest utility line.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-34
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Fill Materials. Excavated
on-site soils may be used as compacted fill. The fill
materials to be used as compacted engineered fill shall be free of organics, debris, deleterious materials, and rocks over 6 inches maximum dimension, and must be
approved by the project geotechnical engineer or project geologist prior to use. Import soils, if required, shall be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer for
suitability prior to delivery. Import soils shall be free of trash, debris or other objectionable materials. All import fill shall have engineering characteristics similar to the on-site soils.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-6: Fill Placement, Moisture
Conditioning, And Compaction. After approval of the
over-excavation and prior to placement of any compacted engineered fill materials, the exposed removal bottoms
shall be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches.

The area shall then be moisture conditioned
approximately 1 to 2 percentage points above the
optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum
of 90 (or 93) percent of the applicable maximum density.

The planned development will involve deep fills in the
canyon areas and side-hill fill slopes. In order to reduce the amount of fill settlement, the fill shall be compacted to the minimum relative compaction shown below:

Fill Depth (Feet)
Minimum Relative
Compaction (ASTM:

D1557) (%)
0 – 50 90
Below 50 93
Fill slopes shall also be constructed at the minimum
relative compactions shown above, with the exception of the outer 3 feet of the slope face which can be placed at City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Generation of oversized rock (over 8 inches in maximum
dimension) from excavations in the bedrocks is
anticipated. Oversize rock shall be placed in single file windrows not exceeding three feet in height and six (6) feet in width with a minimum equipment width (15 feet)
separating each windrow or a rock blanket fill not
exceeding two (2) to three (3) feet in height. Large erratic rocks shall be buried individually. Granular fill shall be thoroughly flooded in the rock voids and covered with a minimum two feet compacted fill blanket. Successive
windrows shall be staggered and none shall be placed
within 10 feet of finished grade or closer than 15 feet to compacted fill slope surfaces. Typical rock placement
construction detail is provided in Appendix IV of the
Geotechnical Report. Placement of rock windrows shall
be performed under the observation and
recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

Fill materials shall be spread in thin lifts, moisture
conditioned to about 1 to 2 percentage points over
optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum
of 90 (or 93) percent of the laboratory maximum dry
density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D-1557. Each lift shall be treated in a like
manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

The grading contractor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment in operation to achieve the
required compaction. When necessary, earthmoving
equipment may be utilized for compaction or temporarily halted in order to permit adequate compaction of fills.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-36
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure GEO-7: Slope Construction

1. Care shall be taken during grading to prevent spillage of loose materials over slopes to remain natural.

Should loose soil be spilled onto natural slopes by the grading contractor, removal of the loose fill shall be
required.

2. Fill shall be properly benched into firm bedrock or
compacted fill as directed by the Project Engineering
Geologist and/or Geotechnical Engineer during
grading. Typical benching shall include 4-foot
verticals exposing approved, competent material (see
Appendix D – Typical Benching Detail of the
Geotechnical Report).

3. In order to minimize surficial slumps on compacted
fill slopes, the following grading procedures shall be
used:
a) Where possible, fill slopes shall be constructed by
overfilling a minimum of three (3) horizontal feet
and then trimming back to expose the dense
inner core of the slope surface. Compacted fill
slopes shall be back-rolled during construction at
intervals not exceeding four (4) vertical feet.

Care shall be taken to construct the slope in a
workmanlike manner so that it is positioned at its
designed orientation and slope ratio. Achieving a
uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge
filling must be avoided. Any add-on correction to
a fill slope shall be done by overfilling the affected
area in horizontal, compacted lifts which must be
benched into the existing fill prism. The overfilled
slope may then be trimmed to the design
gradient.
b) Where fill slopes are planned above natural slopes
and cannot be overfilled and trimmed back, the
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-37

Mitigation Measure GEO-8: Earthwork Observations
And Testing
a) The site preparation, over-excavation, and earthwork shall be performed under the observation and testing
by a representative of the Project Geotechnical
Engineer or Project Geologist.
b) The fill shall be tested at the time of placement to City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

As needed
during site
grading and
construction
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
On-site
inspection
and review of
test results/
reports
Halt grading
and/or
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-38
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
verify that the required compaction is achieved.
c) The fill compaction shall be determined in the field by the Sand Cone Method (ASTM: D 1556) or Nuclear
Gauge Method (ASTM: D 2216), or other test method
approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
d) During grading, an adequate number of field density
tests shall be performed using approved test
procedures in order to determine compliance of
earthwork to the project requirements. The frequency
of field density testing shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical
Engineer.
e) Quality control testing performed to determine the
acceptability of the fill compaction shall be based on
the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content determined in accordance with
ASTM: D 1557 test procedure.
f) Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or
questionable materials encountered during grading
shall be brought immediately to the attention of the
Project Geotechnical Engineer. Deeper excavations
may be required, should unsuitable soils be
encountered locally, as determined by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Geologist.

Mitigation Measure GEO-9: Deep Fill Settlement
Monitoring. In deep fill areas, settlement monuments
shall be installed and periodically surveyed by the project civil engineer to evaluate the magnitude and progress of settlements. Ginter & associates proposes positioning
settlement monuments at strategic locations in the
deeper fill areas as shown on figure vi of the geotechnical report. These shall be monitored on a regular basis until the primary settlement has stabilized before those areas released for construction.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

As needed
during site
grading and
construction
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
On-site
inspection
Halt grading
and/or
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-39

Option 1 - Conventional Footing:

Allowable Bearing Pressure (1) = 1,500 pounds
per square foot (psf)
Minimum Footing Depth (2) = 24 inches
Minimum Footing Width = Continuous: 12
inches
Isolated: 24
inches
Passive Soil Pressure (3) = 250 psf/ft.

Friction Coefficient = 0.30 (ultimate)
Minimum Footing Reinforcement = Four No. 4 bars,
2 each at top and
bottom
Garage Door Grade Beam = 18 inches deep,
Four No. 4 bars,
Two each at top
and bottom, tied
into foundation
elements.
(1) The above value may be increased 250 psf for each
additional foot exceeding the minimum embedment
depth and/or width, subject to a maximum of 2,500
psf. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased
by one-third for short term loading due to wind or
seismic forces.
(2) Footing depth is from lowest adjacent finished soil City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Option 2 – Post-Tensioned Foundation:

If post-tensioned slab/footing system is selected for the subject project, the design may be based on the
geotechnical criteria shown below for medium soil
expansion potential. These are based on the guidelines
presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.

Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -20
Equilibrium Suction = 3.6
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 5.1
feet
Edge Lift, ym = 1.1
inches
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em = 9.0
feet
Center Lift, ym = 0.47
inches
Minimum Footing Depth (Exterior) = 18
inches below adjacent grade
The above foundation criteria are based on medium soil
expansion consideration only. Foundation design shall
consider anticipated post-construction settlements, as
appropriate. Foundation design details such as slab
thickness, concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer
considering medium soil expansion and settlement
potential provided below.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-41

Total static and differential post-construction settlements for footings designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria given below and supporting loads not
exceeding the typical loadings for residential
construction (column and wall loads on the order of 30
kips and 3 kips/lineal foot, respectively) are not
anticipated to exceed the values shown below. The
settlement estimates shall be confirmed based on review of the foundation plans. Structures shall be designed for the following post-construction settlements:
- Total settlement = 1 inch
- Differential settlement = ¾-inch (*)
(*) Between similarly loaded column footings and for
continuous footings and slabs over a distance of
approximately 30 feet.

General Remarks:
(i) Footing depths shall not be allowed to be affected
adversely, such as through erosion softening, digging,
landscaping, etc.
(ii) Where foundations encroach closer than five (5) feet horizontally from the flow line of drainage swales, the footing shall be deepened sufficiently to maintain the
required embedment depth below the adjacent flow
line.
(iii) Foundation details such as concrete strength,
reinforcements, etc. shall be established by the Project Structural Engineer, considering the loading and
medium soil expansion potential. The footing and slab
reinforcements recommended in the Geotechnical
Report are minimum requirements. More restrictive
criteria based on structural design considerations or
City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Forming of footing excavations may be required.

Excavations shall be free of slough and debris and
thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placing
concrete.
(v) Excavated material from footing and utility trenches shall not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless
properly compacted and tested.

Mitigation Measure GEO-12: Slab-On-Grade.

Recommended Minimum Criteria For Slab-On-Grade Are
Shown Below:

Concrete Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs shall be 5
inches thick (minimum) and shall be reinforced with
No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid
height. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center shall be
provided connecting floor slabs to footings. In order
to minimize migration of moisture up the concrete
slab from soil subgrade and damage to floor coverings,
a moisture barrier/water vapor retarder is
recommended beneath floor slabs as discussed
hereinafter.

Moisture/Water Vapor Retarder for Concrete Slabon-Grade: In order to reduce the potential for moisture/water vapor migration up through the slab
and possibly affecting floor covering, a
moisture/vapor retarder is recommended under
concrete floor slab-on-grade. The moisture barrier
shall be properly installed, lapped and sealed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Punctures and rips shall be repaired prior to
placement of sand. At a minimum, this
City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-43

Recommendations based on the ACI guidelines are
presented below:
• The moisture/water vapor retarder shall consist of
high strength polyethylene membrane and shall meet
or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material
requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile
strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder
shall consist of “Moistop Plus” (Fortifiber Building
Products Systems) or “Vapor Block” VB 15
(Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor
retarder shall be underlain by a capillary break
comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer.

The gravel layer shall be placed and compacted on
approved soil sub-grade.
• The membrane shall be placed on approved gravel
layer and properly lapped and sealed. Membranes
intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains shall be properly wrapped around the penetrations
and sealed. All punctures and rips in the membrane
shall be repaired prior to placement of concrete,
following manufacturer’s recommendations. The
vapor retarder shall be installed in general accordance City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-44
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E-1643, and in
conformance with the installation procedures
recommended by the manufacturer.
• To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low
shrinkage mix design) shall be used for the slab
construction, as determined by the Project Structural
Engineer.

The moisture/water vapor protection for concrete
slab-on-grade shall be selected based on cost and
construction considerations, and considering potential
future problems resulting from improper and
uncontrolled landscape irrigation practices.

Regardless of the moisture/water vapor retarder
option selected, it should be emphasized that proper
control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to
the structure is of paramount importance.

Mitigation Measure GEO-13: Driveways. Driveway
concrete slabs shall be 5 inches thick (minimum) with no. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid-height.

The slab may be placed directly on properly prepared
sub-grade. No moisture barrier is required under
driveway slabs.

Exterior concrete flatwork (e.g. Sidewalks, walkways)
shall be 4 inches thick (minimum), with no. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height and placed on
properly prepared sub-grade. Hardscape areas within
two feet of the descending slopes shall include a
thickened edge deepened to provide a minimum five (5)
feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-16: General. Interior floor
slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, shall be properly designed for the construction and
service loading conditions, potential settlements and soil expansion. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc.

Shall be established by the project structural engineer.

The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete
slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only. More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-17: Retaining Walls
• Foundations: Retaining wall foundations may be
supported on either compacted engineered fill or
competent bedrock. If a bedrock/fill transition is
encountered, the bedrock portion shall be overexcavated minimum 2 feet and replaced with approved compacted fill. Alternatively, a cold joint
shall be constructed in both the footing and the wall.

Footings may be designed in accordance with the
foundation design criteria presented in the
Geotechnical Report when embedded at least two feet
below lowest adjacent grade. Footings located on or
at top of slopes shall be deepened, as necessary, to
provide minimum lateral setback between footing and
slope faces in accordance with CBC requirements.
• Lateral Earth Pressures: The earth pressures acting
on retaining walls depend primarily on allowable wall
City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
construction
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
grading or
building
permit; Halt
grading and
construction
activities
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-46
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes,
wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic
pressure. The following lateral earth pressures are
recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic
pressure and no surcharge loading:

Wall
Condition
Backfill
Type
Lateral Earth
Pressure
(Equivalent
Fluid Pressure)
(pcf)
Level
2:1
(H:V)
Active
(Cantilever)
Sandy
Soils
40 65
The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall
backfill (i.e. traffic, construction equipment, footings, etc.) shall be included in the wall design. If the wall is free to deflect, 33 percent of the maximum surcharge load
located within a distance equal to the height of wall shall be used in the design.
• Backfill: Retaining wall backfill shall consist of
predominantly granular non-expansive soils. The
backfill shall extend within a 45-degree plane from the wall footing. Retaining wall backfill shall be
mechanically compacted to minimum 90 percent of
the applicable laboratory maximum density and
performed under the observation and testing of the
Project Geotechnical Engineer. No jetting, ponding, or
flooding shall be permitted. No backfill shall be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are
attained.
• Backfill Drainage: The wall design shall include
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-47

Mitigation Measure GEO-18: Soil Corrosion. The
previous geotechnical consultants, Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc., performed preliminary testing and
indicated that the site soils are corrosive to metals.

Therefore, representative finished grade samples shall be tested for corrosion suites (sulfate, chloride, ph and
resistivity) upon completion of grading. It may be
necessary to retain a corrosion engineer for consultation.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

As needed
during site
grading and
construction
As needed
during
grading and
construction
activities
Review of test
results;
Halt grading
and
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-19: Utility Trench Backfill
• Bedding material shall consist of on-site sandy or
imported materials exhibiting a San Equivalent (S.E.)
value of 30 or greater.
• The on-site soils are considered suitable for trench
backfill, provided they are free of organic materials
and oversize rocks.
• Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 4 inches and
mechanically compacted to achieve a relative
City of Corona
-Building
Division
-Public Works
Div.

D1157. Care shall be taken not to damage utility lines. • Utility trenches shall not be located within the
influence of footings. This is defined as a zone located below the footing and a line sloping at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) outward from the outside
edge of footings. If utility lines are located within the zone of footings, the backfill shall be compacted to a
minimum 95 percent relative compaction or slurry
backfilled (minimum 1-1/2 sack cemented sand mix.
• To reduce potential water migration into building subgrade through the granular bedding/shading layer and/trench backfill, utility trenches shall be backfilled with the onsite finer grained materials or sand-cement
slurry for minimum 3 feet length at their entry points. • Trenches in fill soils and alluvial deposits greater than 4 feet in depth shall be shored or sloped back as
required by the local regulatory agency, the state of
California Division of Industrial Safety Construction
Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements.

Mitigation Measure GEO-20: Asphalt Concrete
Pavement. Preliminary asphalt concrete pavement
sections for the planned streets in the development were developed utilizing the Caltrans method of design and the structural section design guide for California cities and counties. The following recommended pavement
sections were computed assuming an “r” value of 30 for
site soils compacted as sub-grade material, and assumed traffic indices. The actual “r” value will depend on the soil conditions exposed at the planned street sub-grade
elevations. During rough grading, “r” value testing shall be performed on the pavement sub-grade soils to confirm the pavement design basis. Further analysis and
evaluation are necessary if the design traffic index and the sub-grade “r” value are different from those used in City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Traffic
Index
Recommended Minimum Pavement
Section
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate
Base
(inches)
Total
(inches)

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

3.0 4.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0

9.0 12.0

14.0 16.0
Aggregate base shall consist of crushed aggregate base
(CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) and shall
comply with the specifications outlined in the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction”, (“Green
Book”). The base material shall be compacted to
minimum 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density,
determined in accordance with ASTM: D-1557. The soil
sub-grade shall be compacted to minimum 90 percent
relative compaction. The subgrade soils shall exhibit a firm and unyielding surface, in addition to the
recommended minimum compaction. Final compaction
and testing of pavement sub-grade shall be performed
just prior to placement of aggregate base.

Mitigation Measure GEO-21: Site Drainage. All roof
and surface drainage shall be directed away from
structures and their appurtenances and slopes to
approved drainage facilities. Ponding of water shall be avoided. For graded soil areas, a minimum gradient of 2 City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
during site
grading and
Plan check;
As needed
during
grading and
construction
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
building
permit or
Certificate of
Occupancy;
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-50
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
percent away from structures shall be maintained. The
drainage patterns designed by the project civil engineer shall be established at the time of fine grading and
maintained throughout the life of the structure or, if
altered, shall be replaced with a properly designed area drain system. Irrigation activities at the site shall be monitored and controlled to prevent overwatering.

Planter areas adjacent to structures shall be avoided. If utilized, such planters shall include measures to contain irrigation water and prevent moisture migration into
walls and under foundations and slabs-on-grade.
construction activities Halt grading
and
construction
activities
Mitigation Measure GEO-22: Slope Planting,
Irrigation And Maintenance. General guidelines for
slope planting, irrigation and maintenance are shown
below:
a) Slope planting shall consist of appropriate drought
resistant vegetation as recommended by the
Landscape Architect. Landscaping of slopes shall be
completed as soon as possible and properly
maintained.
b) The property owner is responsible for proper
irrigation and for maintenance and repair of installed
irrigation systems. Leaks shall be repaired
immediately. Sprinklers shall be adjusted to provide
maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage
and overlap. Over-watering with consequent
excessive runoff and ground saturation shall be
avoided.
c) If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use shall be adjusted to account for natural rainfall
conditions.
d) All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains, and any other drainage devices that have been City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once during
plan check;
As needed
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Plan check;
As needed
prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Review of
plans; On-site
inspection
Withhold
building
permit or
Certificate of
Occupancy;
Notify HOA of
violation
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-51

Mitigation Measure GEO-23: Additional Investigation.

Additional geologic and geotechnical investigation may
be necessary during the 40-scale grading plan review
phase to obtain supplemental information relative to the site geologic conditions and engineering properties of onsite materials and to confirm the preliminary recommendations provided herein.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check
for each
phase of
development
Plan check
for each
phase of
development
Review of
engineering
reports/plans
Withhold
grading
permit

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: For Drainage Management
Area C, the final engineering for the drainage of Area C shall include a concrete impact basin energy dissipater and rip-rap pad and shall be designed in accordance with City standards. The outlet velocity shall be at or below the existing condition or to a non-erosive velocity. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once during
plan check
Plan check Review of
plans
Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project Design Feature LU-1: The project applicant
will survey and post the location of the private property boundary line where it abuts NFS lands within the project area.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Prior to
occupancy of
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Visual
inspection of
project site
boundary
adjacent to
CNF Forest
Lands.

Withhold
certificate of
occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-52
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
NOISE
Mitigation Measure NS-1: Construction and demolition
shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.

Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and Federal holidays.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Building
Division
During
grading and
construction
Note on
plans. Prior
to issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-2: Noise and groundborne
vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general
truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
During
grading and
construction
Note on
plans. Prior
to issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-3: Construction and demolition
activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating
several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which
causes high noise levels.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
During
grading and
construction
Note on
plans. Prior
to issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-5: The project contractor shall
use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art
noise shielding and muffling devices.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
During
grading and
construction
Note on
plans. Prior
to issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-6: Barriers such as, but not
limited to, plywood structures of flexible sound control curtains shall be erected between the proposed project
and the adjacent existing residences to the northeast and west, to minimize the amount of noise to the maximum
extent feasible during construction.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits/
During
grading and
construction
Note on
plans. Prior
to issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-54
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure NS-7: All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Corona Public Works Department, which shall avoid
residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the
extent feasible.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Building
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits/
During
grading and
construction
Prior to
issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
Mitigation Measure NS-8: Adjacent land uses within 300
feet of the construction site shall be notified about the estimated duration and hours of construction activities at least 30 days before the start of construction.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
Once at least
30 days
prior to start
of
construction
activities for
each phase
of
development
At least 30
days prior to
start of
construction
activities for
each phase of
development
Verify proof of
mailing
Withhold
grading
and/or
building
permit(s)

PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure PS-1: Prior to issuance of building
permits, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review
and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features including, but not limited to
roadway design to meet or exceed minimum fire and
emergency access requirements including
ingress/egress; driveway and fire lane width; turning
radii inside and outside; grades/elevations; adequate onsite space to park CFD apparatus; fire hydrant sizing, spacing and locations; fire protection systems including automatic fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms installed in each residence; availability of adequate firefighting water flow; and approved building materials.

City of Corona
-Fire
Department
-Building
Division
Once at plan
check and
prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Plan check
and prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Review
project plans
Withhold
building
permit(s)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-55

City of Corona
-Fire
Department
-Building
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Confirm fee
payment
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-3: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the project Applicant shall reserve a portion of the project site for a future radio facility site, the specific size and location of which is subject to review and approval of CPD.

City of Corona
-Planning
Division
-Fire
Department
Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Review of
plans to
confirm radio
site provided
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-4: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the project Applicant shall pay the
required service and development fees to the City of
Corona for the public improvements and facilities
associated with the CPD.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Confirm fee
payment
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-5: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the project Applicant shall comply with the City of Corona Municipal Code (Chapter 16.35, Park
Dedication and In Lieu Fees). The City’s subdivision map review authority shall determine whether land
dedication, an in lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its approval of a subdivision map.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Confirm fee
payment or
land
dedication
Withhold
building
permit(s)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-56
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure PS-6: Pursuant to Section 65995 of
the California Government Code, the project Applicant
shall pay the required SB 50 mitigation fees to the
CNUSD.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Confirm fee
payment
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure PS-7: Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the construction of the proposed
project, the project Applicant shall pay the required
service and development fees pursuant to the Section

16.23.080 of the CMC and in the City’s Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan to the City of Corona for the public improvements and facilities associated with the CPL.

City of Corona
-Building
Division
-Public Works
Div.

Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Confirm fee
payment
Withhold
building
permit(s)

TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure TR-1: Intersection 3 – Paseo
Grande at Ontario Avenue: If the project is developed
prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway
Extension then prior to issuance of any building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for two-phase operation.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Review
project plans;
on-site
inspection
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-2: Intersection 4 - Border
Avenue at Ontario Avenue: Prior to issuance of any
building permit for the project, a traffic signal designed for two-phase operation shall be installed. Intersection improvements shall include: 1) restriping of the
eastbound shared left-through lane and the exclusive
right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an exclusive leftturn lane and a shared through-right turn lane and 2) restriping of the westbound shared left-through lane and the exclusive right-turn lane on Ontario Avenue to an
exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Mitigation Measure TR-3: Intersection 10 - Elysia
Street at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any
building permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for five-phase operation to the satisfaction of the City.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase
of
development
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each phase of
development
Review
project plans;
on-site
inspection
Withhold
building
permit(s)
Mitigation Measure TR-4: Intersection 11 - Trudy Way
at Foothill Parkway: Prior to issuance of any building
permit for the project, the Applicant shall install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation to the
satisfaction of the City.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

If the project is developed prior to the construction of the Foothill Parkway Extension then the Applicant shall
improve this roadway segment to a 4-Lane Secondary
Roadway to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP water connection fees as set forth in Section 13.04.040 and Section 13.14.050 of the CMC.

City of Corona
-DWP
-Building
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits
Verify fee
payment
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-58
January 2017 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/Initials
Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required CDWP sewer connection fees as set forth in Section 13.08.600 of the CMC.

City of Corona
-DWP
-Building
Division
Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits
Verify fee
payment
Withhold
Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with the City’s exclusive franchise contract hauler, Waste Management of the Inland Empire.

The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Municipal Operations Department prior
to approval of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

City of Corona
-Public Works,
Municipal
Operations
Division
Prior to the
issuance of
any
demolition
or
construction
permit
Prior to the
issuance of
any
demolition or
construction
permit.

Copy of
receipt or
contract
provided by
applicant to
Municipal
Operations
Division
Withhold
demolition or
construction
permit
Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: In order to facilitate onsite separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide
temporary waste separation bins on-site during
demolition and construction activities.

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits/
During
grading and
construction
Prior to
issuance of
construction
permits/
Regular site
inspections
and upon any
received
complaints
Review of
construction
documents/O
n-site
inspection
Withhold
issuance of
construction
permits/
Issuance of
Stop work
notice until
rectified
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-59

City of Corona
-Public Works
Div.

Once prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development
; As needed
during
operation
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
for each
phase of
development;
As needed
during
operation
Review of
CC&Rs/Onsite inspection
Withhold
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy/
Notify HOA of
noncompliance
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 2014021003 4-60
May 6, 2026
Sandra Vanian
Planning Manager
City of Corona
400 S Vicentia Ave
Corona, CA 92882
Public Comment Opposing Skyline Heights Project (SP2025-0001 / TTM 36544) Attention Sandra Vanian and the Planning and Housing Commission, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Skyline Heights Project (SP2025- 0001 and TTM 36544), scheduled for consideration on May 11, 2026.

While I understand the need for thoughtful development, I have serious concerns about the project's impact on the surrounding community:

First, the existing infrastructure in this area does not appear capable of supporting additional housing at this scale. Roads are already strained and in suboptimal condition, and local schools are overcrowded. Adding more residents without significant infrastructure improvements will only worsen these issues.

TraƯic and safety are also major concerns. Increased vehicle volume on Foothill Parkway, Skyline Drive, and surrounding streets will likely lead to congestion, longer emergency response times, and heightened risks for both drivers and pedestrians.

In addition, the proposed development threatens to eliminate or significantly impact popular hiking and biking trails that are widely used by the community. These outdoor spaces are an important local resource for recreation and quality of life.

I am also concerned about the broader social impacts. New developments of this scale can drive up property values and rents, which may put pressure on longtime residents and small businesses. This kind of displacement and gentrification can fundamentally change a community's character.

The project would also alter the existing neighborhood character, particularly given its hillside location. The visual and aesthetic impacts of large-scale development in this area are significant and should not be overlooked.

Finally, the construction process itself would bring years of disruption, including noise, dust, and potential road closures. While temporary, these impacts would meaningfully reduce the quality of life for nearby residents during that time.

For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to reconsider or deny this project, or, at a minimum, require substantial modifications to address these concerns.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Dean Nelson & Katherine Allgaier
Corona Property Owners near Border
2611 Raven Cir
Corona, CA 92882
(714) 337-2177 – Dean
(949) 838-7835 - Katherine

Corona City CouncilJuly 1, 2026

Corona City Council
July 1, 2026