Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/12/09 (2)REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: December 9, 1991 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 6:12 p.m., Monday, December 9, 1991, by the Chairman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hellyer Bouas, Bristol, Henninger, Messe, Peraza, Zemel COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick John Lower Natalie Lockman Greg Hastings Mary McCloskey Selma Mann Linda Johnson Edith Harris Maggie Perez MINUTES Planning Director Deputy City Engineer Assistant Civil Engineer Zoning Division Manager Planning Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Senior Planner Planning Commission Support Supervisor Word Processing Operator AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 9:00 a.m., December 6, 1991, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - November 29, 1991. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Hellyer explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and /or agenda items. PC911209.wp 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 298, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 317 (PORTIONS 1 AND 2) SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90 -3 (INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JAMES O'MALLEY, Coal Canyon Company, 25200 La Paz Road, Ste. 210, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property, which is described as the 1,546.5 -acre Coal Canyon property, is unincorporated land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence, and generally bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR -91) and the Coal Canyon Road interchange, on the west by the Gypsum Canyon property (Mountain Park development) recently approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the City of Anaheim, on the south by unincorporated property within the County of Orange in the City of Orange's sphere -of- influence, and on the east by unincorporated property within the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence and by the Cleveland National Forest. REQUEST: General Plan Amendment No. 317 (Portions 1 and 2) is a request for an amendment to the Land Use, Environmental Resource and Management and Circulation Elements of the City of Anaheim General Plan. Portion 1 (northerly 663 acres) is a property -owner initiated request and Portion 2 (southerly 883.5 acres) is an Anaheim Planning Commission initiated request. Also requested by the property owner is adoption of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan for the northerly 663 acres (Portion 1 of GPA 317) to serve as preannexation zoning and subsequently regulate the development of the site. A Fiscal Impact Report has also been submitted as part of the project application. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 298) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public /responsible agency review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. A Response to Comments document has been prepared to address the public /responsible agency comments on the Draft EIR. At the time Draft EIR No. 298 was circulated for public review, the original Cypress Canyon project acreage included the entire 1,546.5 -acre Coal Canyon property. The southerly 883.5 acres has subsequently been acquired by the Nature Conservancy (a non - profit organization acting on behalf of the State Department of Fish and Game and the State Wildlife Conservation Board) for the preservation of a Tecate cypress tree habitat area. As a result of said sale, the applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 317 Portion 1) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan project area have been reduced to 663 acres. The Planning Commission has initiated GPA 317 Portion 2 for the southerly 883.5 acres in order for the General Plan to reflect the preservation of permanent open space for said area. The General Plan Amendment request includes, but is not limited to, proposals which would amend the existing Land Use Map for Portion 1 to establish revised boundaries and acreages for Hillside Low and Hillside Low- Medium Density Residential, school, park and open space land use designations, delete the Hillside Estate Density Residential land use designation, add the Medium Density Residential designation, increase residential densities to allow for a maximum of 1,550 dwelling units, decrease General Commercial acreage from 10 to 8 acres, delete the Commercial Recreation designation, modify the location of the fire station site and establish a site for an electrical sub - station and for Portion 2 to delete the Hillside Estate Density Residential, school and park designations and redesignate said areas for open space uses; amend the 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.3 existing Circulation Map for Portion 1 to establish revised alignments and road classifications for Coal Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road and add new collector roadways, and for Portion 2 to delete the Coal Canyon Road designation; and, amend the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map for Portion 1 to establish revised locations and boundaries for the neighborhood park, open space, and bikeway riding and hiking trails and for Portion 2 to delete a neighborhood park designation and establish revised boundaries for open space and locations for trails. The proposed Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. SP90 -3 (including Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) would provide for the development of up to 1,550 residential dwelling units, 8 acres of commercial uses, one elementary school, open space, and governmental uses and public improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers, public utilities, a fire station site, an electrical sub - station site and one neighborhood park. Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) consideration of an application to annex the project area to the City of Anaheim, requests to the County of Orange for consideration of amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways component of the County of Orange's General Plan Transportation Element, request for a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Coal Canyon Company (the project applicant), infrastructure financing programs, subdivision plans, grading permits, and other actions related to the proposed development of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan Community. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, explained the following letters have been received regarding Cypress Canyon: Julie Mayer, Chairman, Art in Public Places Committee, (December 4) Kenneth S. Croker, Chair, Orange County Foothills Subcommittee (December 5) Doug Padley, Wildlife Society, (December 7) Mark J. Palmer, Conservation Director, Mountain Lion Foundation (December 6) Fax -City of Corona (December 9) Steve Loe (December 5) Fax - County of Orange (December 9) Orange Unified School District (December 9) Foothill Community Builders (December 9) Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company, stated they have worked with staff and the adjacent property owners and interest groups, and interfaced with the Irvine Company, Owl Rock, Cleveland National Forest and the owners of the Mindeman Ranch in Riverside County over the past three years and have met with the Coalition of Citizens in the community and that they feel they are submitting the best project which provides a balanced mix of housing for present and the future residents of Anaheim. Mr. Mohler stated this is a topographically constrained property and they tried to minimize altering the landform. He stated on April 12 of this year, they closed escrow with the State of California on approximately 888 acres of this area which represents well over 60% of the project area they originally started with. He stated this all started when Friends of the Tecate Cypress and other interested groups, rangers and citizens involved with the Chino Hills State Park came forward and said there were some significant trees located here. He stated they worked with these groups to identify the grove and to pursue the purchase by 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.4 the state of some of their property. He stated they had a profit potential five times in excess of the price paid to them to deed the property over to the State, and they felt that by working with these groups, and with the 60% open space overture before even getting to a public hearing, that they would be more successful getting some support for the project from these particular groups, and added they are not quite settled with these groups. He stated there are various advantages (for the City, the public and the developer) and rather than having the City take over the responsibility for that 888 acres, the State of California remains the governing agency and the owner and that has tremendous wildlife and fire implications which have been given to the State. Mr. Mohler stated there were approximately 280 acres of the Tecate grove, but they deeded in excess of 600 acres in surplus to provide buffer areas next to the national forest and for potential wildlife corridors on the eastern side of the project which might connect to the underpass to the Mindeman property and up the canyon to Chino Hills State Park. He stated there were various other lands which were of concern to the City with respect to fire protection; that they wanted to preserve the largest Tecate tree in North America.and that the conditions of approval have specific mitigations to protect that tree. He stated preservation of other sensitive plant and wildlife species and habitats is a concern throughout the 888 acres and preservation of the scenic landforms and topography is a consideration and there would have been some grading of some very noticeable ridgelines in that area and there is a blessing to the aesthetic value of the project; that they have offered the potential for inclusion of an interpretative center; and that the EIR and conditions of approval do require habitat replacement. He stated $500,000 of the $4 million went back to the State to put together a land maintenance program and help them seek out other parcels of land throughout the state of California that might be viable for protection in the public trust. He stated they want the Commission to look at the General Plan area as a whole because there was a tremendous amount of planning of this particular project which results in the 1550 units which is a by- product of that entire community, City, governmental and Planning effort. James O'Malley, Coal Canyon Company, referred to the model displayed in front of the chamber and explained the overall boundary of subject property is about 1,600 acres, of which approximately 1546 acres are within the City of Anaheim sphere -of- influence, and there are about 70 acres outside the sphere -of- influence. He pointed out the area of the Tecate Cypress Reserve now owned by the State of California and pointed out the location of the Monarch Cypress tree. He stated much of the open space will remain as ungraded land, with some contour grading, approximately 8 acres of commercial in the front, and a little over 300 acres with different densities, and the school and park site in the canyon area adjacent to the Monarch Cypress tree. Slides were presented showing the general vicinity map indicating the Anaheim boundary, the 91 freeway due north, Santa Ana River, Tecate Cypress Reserve and three other Specific Plan areas, (Sycamore Canyon, The Summit and The Highlands) and 663 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.5 acres of development area; the existing landform; some of the existing trails; existing canyon floor; adjacent property to the east; Green River Golf Course, existing residential area in Yorba Linda; Coal Canyon Stables; existing Owl Rock mining facility; and the Mountain Park Specific Plan area. He explained up until the 50's, this site was used for mining clay purposes and coal, and unfortunately it was not feasible for marketing and the coal operations were terminated. He presented a slide from the center of the property, looking toward Chino Hills and the 91 freeway; the canyon floor area, Chino Hills in the background (East Ridge and West Ridge) and the existing Tecate Cypress grove which will remain untouched. Mr. O'Malley presented an exhibit illustrating the City's existing General Plan, and noted the Plan calls for extension of Coal Canyon Road throughout the site which would have brought the road through the Tecate grove, and tied into the Weir Canyon area; and in addition an elementary school /park facility and other residential uses were proposed in this area. He stated they will identify the 663 -acre development area as Portion 1 and the open space area as Portion 2. A slide was presented of the proposed General Plan Amendment exhibit and it was noted the residential use has been condensed more toward the mouth of the canyon and lower ridge areas and they are proposing residential, commercial, 10 -acre school site, 8.5 acre active park site and added they felt the Tecate Cypress tree was a valuable resource and they have used it as a control for the park site location and limits of grading in that vicinity. A chart was displayed showing the existing Plan acreage, dwelling units, General Plan request, and it was noted 1550 units are proposed; that they are requesting a fire station, schools, Coal Canyon road, Santa Ana River and as currently proposed the fire station is located in the central portion of the site and they have relocated that through negotiations with the Irvine Company and the City in Planning Area 15 which is adjacent to Street E on the western portion of the site; that the existing General Plan calls for two elementary school sites and their proposal is for one elementary school site which is on the floor of the canyon; that Coal Canyon was once proposed as a regional primary highway and they are looking at it more as a project - serving highway and it would terminate at the base of the large Tecate tree and that Santa Ana Canyon Road would be reduced from a 6 -lane scenic expressway to a 4 -lane scenic hillside expressway. He stated existing physical project opportunities and constraints are that obviously the site is abound with steep slopes, hilly topography, a narrow canyon bottom, a Tecate Cypress grove, the largest Tecate Cypress tree, various species of plant and wildlife, Four Corner Pipeline which could be considered a constraint, but physically relocatable, panoramic views throughout, the existing access and domineering change provided by Caltrans and the adjacent proposed development of Mountain Park and their open space neighbors to the east, Cleveland National Forest. He explained regarding land use that they are showing 53 acres of hillside low density residential, 128.5 acres of hillside low- medium density which is up to 6 acres per dwelling unit, 40 acres of hillside medium density which would be RM -1200 and RM -2400 for a total of 221.5 acres, and a total of 1550 units. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.6 He stated there would be other uses as follows: general commercial (8 acres); 9.58 acre park, 360.5 acres of general open space including slope areas,; which is over 50% of the total 663 acres of developable area and the general open space of 370 acres 9.5 -acre park site, fuel modification areas at 37.5 acres, revegetated or manufactured slopes at 217 acres, natural open space of 106 acres, all in Portion 1; and that Portion 2 is 883 acres. Regarding circulation and infrastructure, the next slide showed Coal Canyon Road coming into the terminus point, East Loop Road, Street D which ties into Gypsum Canyon and carries all the main line infrastucture such as water, sewer, etc. and the West Ridge and loop road system. He explained that concerning traffic mitigation, they have been requested to participate in the Eastern Transportation Corridor Fee Program, the Santiago Canyon Road Fee Program, and there is a condition that no building shall be constructed until the awarding of a contract to construct the congestion relief mains on the Riverside (91) Freeway; and that completion of the Circulation Element of the East Anaheim area would be implemented as part of their circulation amendment. He presented an exhibit showing the Grading and Phasing Plan and noted it is important because of the overall site and the constraints maintaining as much ridgeline as possible. He pointed out the canyon area which would be used for most of their fill, etc. Mr. O'Malley explained they were able to work with the landform and contours and limit the impact on the existing grades; that another study was done to satisfy the state and agency permit process regarding habitat replacement and the purpose was to mitigate the loss of possibly 10 acres of wetlands, but since then they have determined that there was less than 6 acres of wetlands affected. He pointed out the 91 freeway, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Coal Canyon on one of the slides and noted the area which could possibly be used as a habitat replacement; and the lowflow channel that would skirt the school /park site; a potential debris basin, and the largest Tecate Cypress tree. Slides were presented of the Tecate Preserve, the noted the Cleveland National Forest in the background and the property boundary running parallel, view from the East Ridge, the Santa Ana River, Green River Golf Course, Prado Dam and Chino Hills in the background. He referred to a newsletter from the Nature Conservancy, and showed a cover page where they received good press for their negotiations, and selling the property under value and working with the State in providing an endowment for the management of this property. Mr. Mohler stated one of the criticism of their EIR and their performance in dealing with the issues relating to the Wildlife Corridors, has been a perceived failure on their part to create a project alternative that works it way around developing in the Canyon floor. He stated he wanted to illustrate just what that means to the project and more importantly, wanted the Commission to understand why it is tantamount to a "no project alternative ". He stated coming in from the Riverside Freeway on Coal Canyon Road to the school site and park site at the top portion of the canyon where the major cypress tree is located, they have been requested to remove that entire area from the project and that particular area contains most of the fill from the West Ridge and some fill from the 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.7 East Ridge; that removing that particular canyon from the project throws the earthwork completely out of order and restricts the project, but more importantly, without that road coming down to Coal Canyon Drive, there would 1300 dwelling units on the West Ridge, on an almost one mile cul de sac from Gypsum Canyon; and that there is not a jurisdiction in the United States that would approve a project with safety issues that would be attendant to a proposal like that and there is not a traffic consultant or Public Works Director in this state who would approve a project like that. He stated they understood what they were talking about when they made that request, and noted "no development" in the canyon would mean that Santa Ana Canyon Road would not be completed to Coal Canyon Road, thereby denying a critical link of a parallel road to the Riverside Freeway. He stated in their estimation, taking this project as a whole, they are requesting a "no project" alternative because the City staff could never have recommended approval of any density with just one entrance from Gypsum Canyon. Bruce Young, Corona Highlands, an adjacent development, stated they are a land owner of the old "Mindeman Ranch" and are just in the process of submitting applications and doing preliminary planning for the portion in Riverside County and that currently it is 880 acres, with 160 acres directly adjacent to this property in Orange County. He explained they have submitted the preliminary application to the City of Corona and that he is present tonight certainly not to oppose the project because he thought it is a very bold and creative approach to hillside planning and on which they are just in the initial stages, but one of the concerns expressed by the City of Corona, and their Public Works Director has contacted the City of Anaheim staff about at least investigating in a rather short fashion some method of being able to connect the two counties so there is a way from their property (Corona Highlands) so that people would at least be able to go from Riverside to Orange County without adding to the congestion problem on the 91 Freeway. He added they are not sure there is a solution available, but the City of Corona feels those should at least be explored before a project is finalized and stated the representatives from the Hon Company have met with their representatives and there have been discussions. Mr.Young stated he would like to request a continuance in order that a meeting such as that could be scheduled. He submitted a letter summarizing his comments. Paul Beier stated he has a PHd in Wildlife Ecology and currently works for the University of California under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game. He added he is speaking tonight as a private citizen. Dr. Beier presented slides and a written narrative to go with the slides. He pointed out for the past three years he has studied the local populations of cougars, also known as mountain lions, pumas or panthers; that the study area is the Santa Ana Mountain Range which lies along the eastern edge of Orange County and extends northward along the north side of the Riverside Freeway to Chino Hills and into San Diego County as the Santa Marguerite Mountain Range. He stated this area contains about 800 square miles of cougar habitat. He pointed out the blue on the exhibit shows the approximate distribution of cougars within the Santa Ana Mountain Range and roughly indicates the adjacent populations to the north and east; and that the cougar population in the Santa Ana Mountains is either an island or peninsula connected toward Mount Palomar. He stated the 800 miles of habitat is very rapidly getting very much smaller and it is projected that by buildout, there will be about one million more human residents in the 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.8 portions of the three counties, and that virtually all of these residents will be accommodated by destroying pristine cougar habitat like this rather than putting them in existing cities. Dr. Beier presented a slide showing the home range of 11 collared female mountain lions and noted there is a great deal of overlap, and noted cougar females are not territorial and their home ranges average about 50 square miles in size and there are about 20 adult breeding females in the mountain range. He stated, however, the males are territorial, and that they have three adult males collared and estimate the range on average can support only about four male mountain lions. Dr. Beier stated when an adult male dies, his territory is usually vacant for a short time while the local juvenile males and other male immigrants fight over who will occupy his territory; however, we do not have a big pool of young males waiting to occupy vacant territories. He stated during 1988 there were two vacant male territories, and they remained vacant for a full year and during all of 1988 in the entire southern half of the Santa Ana Mountain Range, there were no footprints of adult males, etc. He stated they had six collared females and none of them had young cubs and none of them became pregnant during the first 12 months of the study. He explained there is concern because the habitat is shrinking fast and as the habitat shrinks, the total population size will shrink as well. Dr. Beier explained he has a computer model which integrates what is known about cougar reproduction and mortality and cougar social structure in order to project population size over a period of 100 years under various development scenarios. He explained the computer model is extremely detailed and realistic and it will be published next year in America's most prestigious scholarly journal for scientific publications concerning conservation. He summarized the results of the model and explained the expected risk of extinction against the amount of habitat available to the cougar population and explained biologists always consider an extinction risk greater than about 2 or 3% to be unacceptably high and explained the chart which shows that the probably of extinction increases as the habitat area decreases. Dr. Beier stated right now the population is in pretty good shape, and there is a little over 800 square miles and the risk of extinction is virtually 0. He stated habitat destruction must be planned very carefully to accommodate the human growth without dooming the cougar population. He stated immigration is a second factor and with more immigrants into the population, the risk of extinction decreases greatly, but in order to have immigration, there needs to be a wildlife corridor. He stated very low levels of immigration greatly improve the outlook, so corridors are extremely important for survival of our cougar population. He added as habitat patches get smaller and smaller, a wider corridor is needed to allow more frequent visitation by adult males. He added that has some important implications for the study area. He pointed out the San Joaquin hills just east of Newport Bay near Laguna Beach, and explained that area has about 320 square miles of excellent habitat but has no cougars; that the model predicts that any area this small cannot support a cougar population on its own and as recently as 15 years ago, it was connected to the 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.9 rest of the Santa Ana Mountain range and about 10 years ago, some projects were approved without the benefit of good reviews, and tract homes isolated the San Joaquin hills from the rest of the Santa Ana Mountain range and as a result, sometime between 1987 and 1990, the last cougar in the San Joaquin hills died and there will never be cougars there again; that the Chino Hills are about twice as large and provide about 60 square miles of cougar habitat; that the Riverside Freeway and tract homes along it now threaten to create a barrier between the Chino Hills and the rest of the Santa Ana Mountain range; that his model predicts that a cougar population confined to 60 square miles will also go extinct very rapidly unless a male can at least visit once every two years. He added if the Chino Hills are to support cougars, they need a wide corridor, one that allows ready access by males. Dr. Beier stated in 1990 he did some studies to identify routes by which cougars can cross between these areas and that the survey showed that Coal Canyon is the last landscape linkage between the Santa Ana Mountain range and the Chino Hills; that it is the last link for three reasons, 1) has the best undercrossing under the freeway; 2) the only place where wild habitat abuts both sides of the freeway; and 3) it lies along the last remaining large undeveloped canyon on the south side of the freeway (Coal Canyon) which provides a natural travel corridor which naturally funnels cougars and other animals toward that underpass; that in 1991 they learned this corridor is actually used by cougars, at least two and probably three different cougars have used Coal Canyon to cross between the Santa Ana Mountains and Chino Hills; and noted the male shown in the slide has used Coal Canyon to cross under the freeway at least 16 times during the last 7 months. He stated biology is an imprecise science and it is rare that a biologist can make a flat statement, but that in this case he could categorically state that the Cypress Canyon project as now proposed will guarantee the extinction of cougars in the Chino Hills; and that the loss of Chino Hills will, in turn, reduce the habitat remaining for the entire population by about 60 square miles. He stated 60 square miles is about how much habitat we could afford to waste before getting to the critical point in terms of extinction risks, and with this single project, all that slack will be taken and instead of getting half a million homes out of the habitat loss, there will 500 homes. He stated a decision to approve the applicant's alternative is a "death sentence" for the entire population of cougars in the Santa Ana Mountain range; that technically, of course, there would be just enough habitat left to support a population, but there would be no hope of saving that habitat because if the Commission and Council with their eyes wide open can chose to remove 60 square miles of cougar habitat for the sake of 450 homes, there is no hope that other Planning Commissions would act to save smaller parcels. He added these concerns were raised two years ago early in the scoping process, and that numerous speakers have pointed out that the Coal Canyon Corridor is critically important for cougars and other species and they even suggested an alternative plan that insured an effective corridor and that alternative only required the applicant to reduce the number of dwelling units by about 450 units and the alternative proposal included steps for revegetating the mouth of Coal Canyon to make it a first rate connection for all wildlife. He stated past human land abuse has degraded the mouth of Coal Canyon, but this is a real opportunity to allow the applicant to build more homes than the General Plan 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.10 allows and to preserve the existing wildlife corridor and to enhance that corridor significantly. He pointed out the last link to Chino Hills is Coal Canyon coming down to the freeway and despite this exciting opportunity to gain both homes and preserve and enhance the wildlife corridor, he was most disappointed to see that the City seems "hell bent" on rubber stamp approval of the project as proposed by the applicant. He stated in the Response to Comments, the applicant put forth four arguments to characterize their alternative as infeasible; and those arguments were insultingly feeble and blatant mockeries of CEQA's mandate to implement all feasible mitigations; that those four arguments are so lame that he would not repeat them; however, he did discuss them in the letter submitted. He added he does not blame the project applicant for ignoring the needs of wildlife; that the applicant's company is a development company and they are not the Sierra Club, and it would be foolish to expect the applicant to look after the interest of wildlife and to safeguard the quality of life and protect the critical open spaces; that those responsibilities rest not with the applicant but with this Planning Commission and this City Council and it is their responsibility to develop a better alternative and he trusted they would faithfully execute their responsibilities and if they choose instead to rubber stamp the applicant's proposal, they will be making a preposterous statement that it is so important that we have 450 more families in Anaheim that we must eliminate cougars from the Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountain range. He added he did not think they are ready to make that statement. He stated on the day that the Santa Ana Mountain range loses its last cougar, this mountain range will have lost a large part of its wild soul and those who live in the shadow of these mountains will have also lost an important part of their "sense of place ", of where they live and in a world where we have already had our creeks confined to concrete ditches, where few can find a native shrub within walking distance of their home, and where we listen to the radio each morning to hear if it is safe to get on the freeway or breath the air and the loss of the cougar will be another big step toward a life devoid of sense of place, a sterile lifestyle, and in a plastic world. He asked the Commissioners to do the right thing and stated they must order preparation of a new draft EIR, one that includes a wildlife corridor, so that future generations can enjoy the same biological diversity that we have now. Connie Spenger, President, Friends of the Tecate Cypress, 1318 E. Glenwood, Fullerton, presented letters and supporting documents which she wanted to be made part of the official hearing record, and read the letter dated December 9, 1991, from the Friends of the Tecate Cypress to Chairman Glenn Hellyer and Commissioners as follows: "We would like to compliment the preparers of the Comments and Responses for a volume that is easy to use and read. We advise the Planning Commission to seriously consider our comments before making any decision on the Cypress Canyon proposed project. We want this letter to be a part of the official hearing record. General Plan Policy, Landforms THE PROPOSED Cypress Canyon development is a clear defeat of the Anaheim Planning Commission and City Council plan to preserve prominent ridgelines in undeveloped areas within their jurisdiction. A study of the Cypress 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.11 Canyon Preliminary Grading Plan reveals substantial cuts into the major and highly visible ridgeline that divides Coal from Cypress Canyon. BEGINNING AT A HIGH POINT nearest the new State of California Tecate Cypress Reserve is a ridgeline roadway cut 116 feet deep; that further down the ridge, a 120 -foot road cut is planned; that two /thirds of a mile down ridge from the Reserve, a 152 -foot cut is planned; and finally, nearly one mile down ridge from the Reserve and next to the planned Mountain Park development boundary, a 153 -foot ridgeline roadway cut is planned. ON THE EAST SIDE of the Cypress Canyon project, along the prominent and highly visible ridgeline that divides the Coal Canyon from Santa Ana Canyon to the north, additional road and building pad cuts are planned. Ridgeline road cuts to a 160 -foot depth, and building pad grading extends two - thirds of a mile upward towards Sierra Peak. The Specific Plan (p.57 C.a.Grading Concept) erroneously states that 150 feet is the maximum cut depth. THE SPECIFIC PLAN (P. 59, Exhibit 11b, Cut -fill Plan) indicates that 5 million cubic yard surplus of cut material would be generated from cuts on the east side of the project. The same Exhibit 11b indicates a 4.388 million cubic yards of additional fill material would be needed on the west side of the project. Would surplus cut material from the east side of the project be transported to the west side of the project to be used as fill? If that is the plan, how is the Specific Plan Land Use Element Residential Area Policy to be conformed with? The policy (Specific Plan p. 29) states, Grading will be kept to a minimum with development following the natural contours of the land. Purchase of Tecate Cypress Ecological Reserve THE ANAHEIM PLANNING Commission is hereby advised of Corporation Grant Deed 91- 237053, conveying the Tecate Cypress Ecological Reserve from The Nature Conservancy, a non - profit corporation, registered in the District of Columbia, to the State of California on March 14, 1991. The final transfer was recorded on May 15, 1991. A copy of the deed is submitted herewith for inclusion in the official hearing record. She added there is nothing in the deed about the Tecate Reserve being mitigation for the proposed project. Tecate Cypress THE RESPONSES SAY that construction activities will be kept a mere 50 feet from the drip line of the Monarch Tecate Cypress. However, revegetation expert David Bramlet and arborist Alden Kelley recommend construction be kept from 300 to 500 feet away from the drip line. Specific measures to protect the monarch Tecate cypress are not addressed. Will the second large, mature Tecate cypress on the floor of Coal Canyon be preserved? Condition of Approval #128 (Item 3) "Guidelines for propagule collection" should specify that Tecate Cypress seedlings used in the landscape should be grown only from seeds gathered from Gypsum, Coal and Fremont Canyon parent plants. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.12 MR. DAVE TRUSDALE,a biologist at San Diego State University, has determined that there are significant enzyme differences between the cones of San Diego County Tecate cypress populations and those found in Orange County. Most Tecate cypress nursery stock is derived from San Diego County seed or juvenile transplants. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 184 appears to be a thinly disguised attempt to make the state purchase mitigation for project impacts. Preservation of somewhat more than half of the existing stand of Tecate cypress is not mitigation for impacts to the Tecate Cypress forest. The preservation was accomplished by sale to the State, not by dedications. IN CONVERSATION with The Nature Conservancy today, it was learned that the $500,000 donation was a voluntary gift for acquisition of other Tecate cypress sites, and not a mitigation measure. The money has been used to protect the Quatay Mountain Tecate cypress stand in San Diego County. Graded Open Space GRADED OPEN SPACE comprises 38% of the proposed Cypress Canyon project. Graded open space provides no mitigation for effects to wildlife, wildlife movement corridors, native habitats or rare species. Only 15% of the project area is nature open space. A substantial portion of this natural open space is too steep to stand upright on it, which substantially reduces its mitigation value. IN ONE OF NUMEROUS EXAMPLES of the Specific Plans internal contradictions, the following is stated: p. 64, D., Open Space, Internal manufactured slopes will be maintained by owner /developer or other financial mechanisms acceptable to the City, and are not included in open space calculations. And, p. 60 (top paragraph), "Internal (large manufactured) slopes will be maintained by a homeowners association." In Comments and Responses, page 9, open -space calculations include revegetated, and presumably graded slopes. Would natural open space be maintained by homeowner associations or by the City? FIRE, FUEL MANAGEMENT ALTHOUGH CONTROLLED BURNS, design of firebreaks, and fire management practices are mentioned in the EIR, specific measures are not included, and it is not told which measures would be feasible or legal immediately adjacent to residences. EFFECTS ON TECATE CYPRESS would be severe due to the lack of natural open -space buffer lands between the development and the Tecate cypress. Dr. Paul Zedler in his letter of comment recommends between 1/4 and 1 mile of natural open -space buffer lands. Controlled burns are not mitigation. Controlled burns would have harmful impacts to nature species. Tecate cypress and chaparral ecosystems, including birds and wildlife, are adopted to infrequent, hot fall fires. THE ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT (Condition of Approval #60) requires low fuel plants to be grown on nature slope a minimum distance of 30 feet from any structure. Such low -fuel plantings can be expected to further reduce the acreage of native vegetation on ungraded open space slopes. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.13 Plant Palette CONDITION OF APPROVAL #67 specifies that non - native invasive plants shall not be used in landscape plans, fuel modification zones or buffer zones which interface with the preserved natural open space areas. Friends of the Tecate Cypress recommends that Monterrey cypress, Smooth Arizona cypress, and Leylandi (hybrid) cypress be added to the list of prohibited plants. Geology MUCH IS SAID in the EIR about earth movement and other geological problems being too far in the past to have an impact on the proposed development. However, in correspondence in the Coal Canyon Shooting Sports EIR, an Interpace Corporation official says that the company covered an old mine opening for liability protection. However, the cover has already slumped away due to earth movement. In addition, erosion in Claymine Canyon has undercut clay drainage pipes by 10 to 20 feet. We believe the potential for geological instability on the property is significant. IN THE RESPONSES, the EIR preparers acknowledge that additional grading over and above what is depicted in the EIR may be necessary. We object to the fact that grading impacts have not been thoroughly analyzed in the EIR. We object to lack of grading plans for a water tower in the EIR. This water tower is quite close to populations of Braunton's milk - vetch. All impacts to Bruanton's milk -vetch are adverse. MITIGATIONS FOR IMPACTS from rockfall that may be expected both from natural causes and heavy blasting are not well described. How big, and how strong, will fences need to be to retain not only small rocks but large boulders? We know there is a potential for large boulders to come down, because they are found in the alluvium on the canyon floor. WOULD SYNTHETIC FILL stabilizers be used? What effect would plasticizer found in fill stabilizers have on groundwater. Hydrology DRAINAGE FACILITIES for a 100 -year flood are totally inadequate. In fact, the Specific Plan admits that the proposed road down the floor of Coal Canyon is the designated drainage channel for runoff from a 100 -year flood. Alluvial Sage Scrub CONTRARY TO what is stated in the Responses, alluvial sage scrub, of which scale broom is an indicator species, is a rare plant community. NEVERTHELESS, the project proponent proposes to cover existing alluvium and alluvial sage scrub -with fill. However, scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), the "bush that ate Corona" is adapted to pushing its way up through alluvium, including boulders. In Corona, developers were liable for houses destroyed by scale broom. If the city knowingly allows a project in scale broom territory, I believe the city would be liable for such damages. In addition, city structures, such as roads, would be subject to damage. The amount of herbicides necessary to kill this bush would do unacceptable damage to the environment, especially to groundwater and the food chain. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.14 California Gnatcatcher WE INCLUDE with our comments a copy of correspondence for the official hearing record from biologist Alan Schoenherr, who is familiar with the California gnatcatcher. He reports seeing and hearing the California gnatcatcher on the Coal Canyon property on September 27 this year. His causal observation implies that many more California gnatcatchers are likely to be on the property. Rare Species THE SPECIFIC PLAN, November 1991 version, says p. 39, par. 3: "There are no rare or endangered species of plants or animals in the project area." To the contrary, cementers on the EIR have made it abundantly clear that rare and endangered species exist on the project area. On the Coal - Gypsum ridgeline within the project area are Tecate cypress (Cand. 2, USFWS,List 1B, CNPS), Braunton's milk -vetch (Cand. 2, USFWS, List 1B, CNPS), chaparral beargrass (de -facto rare and endangered, see numerous comments), many- stemmed live- forever (Cand. 2, USFWS, List 1B, CNPS), matilija poppy (CNPS List4), Catalina mariposa (CNPS List 4), coast horned lizard (Cand. 2, USFWS), California gnatcatcher (proposed for listing as endangered, USFWS), and orange- throated whiptail lizard (Cand. 2, USFWS). THE SUMMARY of impacts and mitigations' included in the Comments and Responses makes no mention of Braunton's milk vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), which is so rare that only seven populations remain Six of the seven are either partly destroyed by development or threatened by development. Half of the Coal- Gypsum ridgelike population of Braunton's milk -vetch will be destroyed by the proposed project, including 137 plants at the lower site, and an unknown number at the upper site. The number is unknown, because grading and siting plans for the water tower were not reported in the EIR. THE WATER STORAGE site could also destroy the food plant for Quino's Checkerspot. Since butterfly surveys were inadequate, these impacts are unknown. We object to the impacts for the water tower being deferred to a later date. NO ANALYSIS is made concerning impacts to populations of matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri), Catalina mariposa (Calochortus catalinae), chaparral beargrass (Nolina cismontana). We agree that these populations should be located and impacts addressed. In addition, numbers for many - stemmed live- forever should be reported. NO ANALYSIS is provided for impacts to coast horned, or orangethroated whiptail lizard. Lizards are now known to have larger ranges than was formerly thought. Coast horned lizards are found throughout the project area, but it is not clear how many adult territories this represents. NO SURVEY for rare bat species was included. Wildlife Corridors THE COAL- GYPSUM ridgeline is the natural way for wildlife movement in and out of the Cleveland National Forest. However, movement into Coal Canyon from the Chino Hills takes place on the floor of Coal 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.15 Canyon. This is an important area for movement, because wildlife uses the perennial water supply in the east branch of Coal Canyon and in Claymine Canyon. A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MAP in the Responses depicts cougars reaching Chino Hills park by way of Aliso Canyon. In the latest mountain lion crossing into Chino Hills State Park, the animal went downriver, and up a steep ridge east of Brush Canyon. AT THE PRESENT TIME, the Caltrans box culvert and the Coal Canyon bridge underpass are being used by mountain lions and other animals to pass between the Chino Hills State Park to the north and the Cleveland National Forest to the southeast. The two commercial areas combined with planned Santa Ana Canyon Road /Coal Canyon Road construction would permanently block mountain lion access to the box culvert and freeway bridge underpass. IN ADDITION, THE PLANNED 9 x 12 -foot reinforced concrete storm drain box culvert would connect directly to the existing Caltran box culvert at the Riverside Freeway. The enclosed 9 x 12 -foot box would extend upstream nearly one mile and terminate in an eight- foot - diameter concrete storm drainpipe at a planned debris basin at the south end of the Coal Canyon Company property. No mountain lion or other mammals wold use a one -mile- long underground tunnel as a wildlife corridor. Alternatives GENERAL PLAN NUMBERS for the 663 -acre project area would be 466 units. This the proportion of 663/1,650 acres compared to X/1170 units. It is entirely possible to cluster this number of units and still preserve all tecate cypress plus at least one - quarter -mile buffer lands, preserve the Braunton' milk - vetch within the buffer lands (here expanded beyond one - quarter mile), and preserve the regionally significant wildlife movement corridor at the Coal Canyon box culverts and underpass. Trail location THE TRAIL depicted in the Comments and Responses is not appropriate. This trail goes up the canyon floor, then rises steeply to the ridgeline. Maintenance and use of the steeply rising trail will be difficult, if not impossible. The existing ridgeline road should be retained as a trail, wildlife corridor and rare species habitat. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on EIR 298. Yours truly, (Constance Spenger,President) (Gordon Ruser, Treasurer)" Ron Schafer, Department of Parks and Recreation - Chino Hills State Park, submitted a document prepared in March 1991 which is that department's response to the draft environmental impact report. He added that response never made it to the inclusion in the draft as a comment. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.16 He continued that Dr. Beier's presentation was very interesting; however, his comments will be very specific, but it is interesting that the property he represents is less than 60 square miles, 11,000 acres, and one of the questions asked of him long ago when they were talking about the seclusion of wildlife corridor was whether Chino Hills State Park wants cougars there and his response was a "yes ". He read from their General Plan regarding the purpose of Chino Hills State Park as follows: "The purpose of Chino Hills State Park is to be perpetuated for public use, inspiration and aesthetic enjoyment an area of natural beauty including oak, walnut woodlands, grasslands, riparian and archeological resources. All scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources shall be managed as a whole. Preserving, restoring and protecting the park's natural resources, in accordance with the ecological principles. The function of the Department of Parks and Recreation in Chino Hills State Park is to ecologically manage the area's varied interdependent resources in order to insure perpetuation of the diverse environmental complexes, restore those natural resources which have been damaged by the works of humans, interpret the park's resources effectively and provide consistent with perpetuation of park's resources, such facilities and services as are necessary for the public's full enjoyment of the unit's natural and cultural features and recreational opportunities. He added that is their mission and what they are supposed to be doing at Chino Hills State Park. Mr. Schafer stated he would like to highlight interdependent resources in the area and regarding the question whether they want cougars, he answered they do because they are part of those interdependent resources, the predator /prey relationships that exist, and to cut off Coal Canyon as a viable wildlife corridor will leave females in the Chino Hills and not visited by males, in a short time cougars would become extinct. He added the question goes beyond whether Chino Hills State Parks wants cougars, that when the cougars are removed from that food web, they will stop eating deer, then the deer will over - populate, then the deer will start to feed on the rare and sensitive plant species that are in the area, so the question is whether they want a balanced ecosystem, and they do need that. Mr. Schafer stated the taxpayers of the State of California spent a great deal of money to purchase this property to accomplish these goals and it would be really nice if they could maintain the influx. He stated it is more than just cougars and includes other large mammals migrating into and out of the Chino Hills. He added for $55 million which is a round figure, he would encourage the Commission to pursue an alternative which would maintain the integrity of the wildland corridor into the Chino Hills from the Santa Ana Mountains and to look at this project's cumulative impacts with the rest of the developments that are going on in the region. Frank Remkiewicz, Director of Planning, Research and Information Services, Orange Unified School District, 370 N. Glassell, Orange, stated they submitted a proposed memorandum of understanding about 1 -1/2 to 2 months ago to the Coal Canyon Company that would provide the framework for mitigating the students generated from the Cypress Canyon development. He explained the basis for that MOU came from a similar agreement between the Orange Unified School District and the Irvine Development Company which they agreed to and signed for the Mountain Park Development. He stated they received no formal response from any official of the Coal Canyon Company until 3 p.m. last Friday; and referred to a fax of a letter dated September 6, 1991, from the Coal Canyon attorneys which rejects, as far as they can tell, all salient parts of the proposed MOU, and as a result the Orange Unified School 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.17 District and the Coal Canyon Company must return to the negotiating table for further discussions. He added due to this late turn of events, that he, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Orange Unified School District, respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue all hearings on this and any related issues until such time they have reached agreement through a Memorandum of Understanding that fully mitigates the impacts that will be felt by the Orange Unified School District when Coal Canyon Company develops Cypress Canyon. Spencer Gilbert, Resident State Park Ranger, Chino Hills State Park, stated he is representing the California State Park Rangers Association, and submitted letters for the records and referred to the slides and discussions regarding the mountain lion; that Chino Hills State Park is an island with a bridge that links it with Coal Canyon. He stated when people come to visit him in the park, they are quite amazed that they have to cross a ridgeline to come inside the park and when they look all around and see absolutely no signs of human development, except for some Edison lines that cross the park. He stated when the visitors are told that there are mountain lions in the park, they can't believe it and they figured they would have to go to a zoo to show their children a mountain lion. He explained they get a spotting of a mountain lion once a week in the Telegraph Canyon area, and the visitors who see them are completely astounded and it makes their lives so much better; that they live in a Orange County /San Bernardino /Riverside County area that has turned into tract homes everywhere and everything looks the same and they all shop at the same grocery chain and all travel to and from their jobs for hours and to see a mountain lion so close to their homes, really renews their spirit. Mr. Gilbert encouraged the Planning Commissioners to visit the park so they can grasp the feeling he is talking about and it will enhance their life, as it has his, and added he has given second thoughts to transferring within the department to Northern California like most rangers do because Chino Hills is a gem, and he thought the Commissioners would be interested in the quality of life of the residents in the Anaheim area. He added state parks at this time are severely limited by the budget and added he is the only ranger who lives in the park and there is one other patrolling ranger for 11,000 acres. He stated they rely on the citizens who live in the communities around the park to provide interpretative programs and voluntary patrols on horseback and bicycles. He added there is so much involvement right now that they are able to maintain the 11,000 acre park with the volunteers who live in the cities around it and added a number of the volunteers come from the Anaheim area. Greg Balmer, Tri- County Conservation League, stated the Santa Ana River passes through three counties and their organization has a broad membership throughout and they are concerned about this project as proposed. He stated they are most concerned about the loss of a very important regional wildlife corridor linkage; that the Santa Ana River itself is a very important corridor which links the coastline and animals and plants all the way up into the mountains at 10,000 feet, and the sea is going to potentially be cut off from the Santa Ana Mountains. He added the Tri- County Conservation League is very concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and also educational opportunities that go along with all this natural wildlife which is so close to approximately 15 million people; and that this is really an urban parkway that runs through a very populous area. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.18 He added they are very concerned about cougars but they are also concerned about other organisms and any wildlife corridor that is going to be functional for cougars will also function for all the other species. He added there is one other issue and that is that more consideration be given to certain rare plants that occur on the project area and one of those is known as Molinous Montana, and is a very rare species and has a very restricted population and most of the plants are known to occur in Coal Canyon and Gypsum Canyon and under the projects that have either been approved or proposed for those canyons, much of those will be lost and they asked that the populations within the project area of Coal Canyon be mapped and made available so that any possible mitigations could be identified, in terms of perhaps rearranging a street or housing pad, etc. and that was not done. He stated, however, a statement was made based upon observations in nearby Gypsum Canyon that chaparral was the type of habitat this plant liked to live in, but also mentioned that it inhabits coastal sage scrub and both of these types of habitat or plant communities occur within the project site and he personally has seen very good stands of Nolina Cystmontana within the area proposed for grading right along the ridgeline that separates those two canyons. He added he is disappointed that not more was done; that it has been approximately nine months since the original draft EIR came out and the comments went in and nothing has been done. He added for that reason, he believed a serious attempt was not made to accommodate the concerns of those who commented, not only to the draft EIR, but to the Notice of Preparation, and those concerns have not been adequately addressed; that the wildlife corridor is just the biggest. He stated he did not believe the applicant's claim that this project is either "no project" or it has to be the one that they want and that his organization includes planners, wildlife experts, etc. and they did not come to that conclusion and that his group has met with others who also have broad experience, including urban planning, etc. and they all believe that this project could be rearranged and accommodate that wildlife corridor and he thought there is "win /win" situation, and that the project proponent has not gone the extra mile. He stated they request that the Commission either require that they go back and redo this or just deny the project. Scott Johnson, representing himself and his family, stated in lives in the Chino Hills, 4366 Village Drive, Apt. N, Chino Hills, and is here to voice his opposition to the proposed development in Coal Canyon and that he lives approximately one mile from the state park in Chino Hills and that he mountain bikes and hikes there often, several times a week; that the Chino Hills State Park is one of the few places where people go in this area and interact with the natural environment and observe wildlife in its native habitat and as such it is a valuable public resource. He stated the Coal Canyon development project is the single greatest threat posed to wildlife in the Chino Hills Park and areas extending to the north and east, and to wild hill country, and extending to Walnut, West Covina and Whittier areas; that the culvert that runs beneath the Riverside Freeway at Coal Canyon is the only identifiable corridor for mountain lion movement that has proven to be in use; and that the mountain lion population in the hills north of the 91 Freeway is sustainable only with continued access to this corridor. He stated he is no wildlife biologist, but knows that the disappearance of the mountain lion as a member of the wildlife community would upset the fragile balance of life in the state park and in the undeveloped areas to the north and west of the park, an in- balance that would be impossible to remedy. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.19 Mr. Johnson stated the mountain lion is essential in keeping deer and other wild animal populations healthy and in control; that he has lived on the land and in the park and in the Coal Canyon area longer than any of our forbearers; that aside from the state park and adjacent areas of Coal Canyon itself; that Coal Canyon is a beautiful, pristine canyon, home to the Tecate Cypress, horned toad, coastal molina, and other certified rare species; that he has toured Coal Canyon with Cal Poly biologist, Jack Bath, and that they discovered at culvert, with fresh mountain lion tracks at both ends of the freeway and that they visited the Monarch Cypress and walked deep within the canyon where the roar of the freeway becomes a faint whisper; that they found coyote skat, deer tracks, mountain lion tracks, hawks, ravens and buzzards soaring overhead and this land is still wilderness and as such is a gift to us all. He stated the fact that the future of this land is being discussed before a development committee and not a committee for preservation is lunacy, in his opinion. He stated certain people among the leadership of the City of Anaheim for reasons best known to themselves, say this development is in the best interest of the citizens of Anaheim, but the citizens of Anaheim have a membership in the larger community, the community of living things on this planet and as members of this large community, they have a responsibility to defend the interest of those who cannot defend themselves; and asked who speaks for the voiceless who stand to suffer the most from this development, the wild creatures who since before time, called this canyon their home. He stated he thought the development should be stopped as proposed in Coal Canyon now; and that some compromise should be found to retain Coal Canyon and the last remaining wildlife corridor between Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountain Range. Rudo Boss stated the presentation by the last speaker was really eloquent, but what he has to say is more on an emotional level; that he did not realize until a couple of years ago that there was wildlife in the area; and that he photographs wildlife and has been doing it for a number of years, mostly in areas like Alaska, Montana, Canada, Wyoming, etc. He stated a few years ago he was talking to some children about wildlife in this area and found they all go the zoo to see the wildlife and that he started exploring the hills in the area and there is not much wildlife and it is very out of balance and you see the same animals over and over again and about six months ago he met a few people in Chino Hills State Park and that he had moved in the area without realizing the park was there. He stated he takes school children there now and photographs the wildlife and then takes the pictures back to all the schools. He stated there are animals there which the children never dreamed they could see, from pond turtles, rare frogs, to golden eagles, etc. He stated they continuously see those animals in Coal Canyon, and in fact there are two golden eagles which soar those hillsides. He stated he has taken children in from the other side (Chino, Diamond Bar) but would rather take the children up in the evening from Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda and they can watch the coyotes howl at the moon and watch barn owls come out of the tree and when the children see that type of experience, the environment becomes very important to the children. Gordon Ruser, 1221 S. Sycamore, Santa Ana, 92707, stated he is representing the 64,000 member Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club with members in the Los Angeles and Orange Counties. He read resolutions passed by the Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter on October 18, 1989, as follows: "The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club supports the preservation and protection in their natural states of Laguna, Silverado, Trabuco, Gypsum, Mojeska and other undeveloped canyons in Orange County." 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.20 He stated it is also very clear that Coal Canyon is an undeveloped canyon Orange County. He continued more up to date and more specifically, on April 18, 1991, the Angeles Chapter Executive Committee passed the following resolution. "The Sierra Club supports the acquisition of the entire Coal Canyon property by a public or private land protection agency for the protection of the rare Tecate Cypress and associated rare species and for the maintenance for the corridor of regional significance to wildlife in Chino Hills State Park, the Trabuco District of the Cleveland National Forest and the region as a whole." Mr. Ruser added he thought that sums up the Sierra Club - Angeles Chapter's position on Coal Canyon. He stated other organizations, with some effort by the Sierra Club representatives, letters being written by the Sierra Club members in Orange County and other parts of the Angeles Chapter, have been requesting that funds be made available to purchase the remaining Coal Canyon property and adjacent nearby areas along the Riverside Freeway where wildlife crossings are being made available to mountain lions and other mammals. He stated within the last three months, after having visited the Wildlife Conservation Board -State of California, Tecate Cypress Reserve, he has noticed in the western portion of the Claymine Canyon Area on the west side of Coal Canyon where the main divide roadway passes the west side Claymine Canyon, there is a new welded iron pipe gate and according to the grading maps he has read and studied, in his opinion, it is very clear that the new gate has been placed there by persons involved with the Coal Canyon Company and that gate is on the State of California property and that gate which apparently is intended to keep visitors to the Tecate Cypress Reserve off the Coal Canyon property is actually 300 to 400 feet inside the State of California Tecate Cypress Reserve. He added it seems that this particular locked gate should be moved onto the Coal Canyon Company property, 300 to 400 feet to the north, from its present position sometime in the near future. Chairman Hellyer stated he knows exactly where that gate is located and suggested Mr. Ruser discuss that gate with the Hon Development Company. Mr. Ruser stated about two or three weeks ago he did call James O'Malley, but there has been no response to that call at the present time. Chairman Hellyer stated he would like to offer the applicant a continuance to January 21, 9 :00 a.m. and that he would request, if it is agreeable with the other Commissioners, that the applicant prepare a written response to these items heard today. Mr. Mohler responded that is acceptable and that they would be happy to be back the 21st of January and they do appreciate the opportunity to respond in writing to everything that has been said. Commissioner Messe stated not only should they respond to everything that has been said, but the Commission should be presented with a set of documents; that they have received a lot of letters and he thought those should be responded to also. Mr. Mohler stated they have been kept pretty well up to date but would appreciate an opportunity to review those things presented today and be able to comment. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.21 Commissioner Henninger stated there has been a lot of discussion about a plan that leaves a corridor there immediately to the west of their proposed location of Coal Canyon, and that he heard the applicant say that is infeasible but he thought the Commission still needs to see a plan like that in any case; that a lot of people want to see that plan and he thought they need to develop it, just to show the Commission what it would be like and thought that has to be an alternative in this EIR. Mr. Mohler stated he was not sure he understood exactly what Commissioner Henninger was talking about, but if it is an alternative wildlife corridor, they have prepared such an alternative. Commissioner Henninger replied that he has read their document, and that he is not talking about an alternative wildlife corridor, but an alternative plan that shows the wildlife corridor down in the bottom of the canyon at Coal Canyon. Mr. Mohler stated it would be equally appropriate to prepare an alternative showing a wildlife corridor on the eastern portion of the property and showing how that could also work. Chairman Hellyer and Commissioner Henninger both felt they could do that alternative as well. Commissioner Henninger stated he heard the applicant say that was not feasible, but they need to show that as an alternative and he thought if we get tested on this EIR and that is not in there, people will ask why it is not there and he thought that has to be included as a fully developed alternative. Mr. Mohler stated his dilemma is that they would be proposing a plan that the staff could not endorse and the Commission would not approve and it appears to be an exercise in futility. He stated they would be willing to prepare it and graphically show the Commission why and let them judge for themselves, but the normal situation does not allow a one -mile cul de sac with density off it, with no way out the back for fire or utilities. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not suggest a one -mile long cul de sac; and that they have seen the Mindeman representatives and the City of Corona talking about some connection through to Santa Ana Canyon. He referred to an alternative that might take their connection into "D" Street with the Irvine Company, essentially a bridge across Coal Canyon, continuing on through the Mindeman property and connecting ultimately with Green River and just delete Coal Canyon Road except where it touches that one piece of commercial, and leave the rest of the bottom of the canyon undeveloped. He stated that is a reasonable alternative. Mr. Mohler stated that is much the same as the City's General Plan which shows a two dimensional layout of Coal Canyon Road which goes right through the center of the canyon, right up over the back hills and stated what Commissioner Henninger is suggesting defies gravity; that there is a certain amount of engineering, sewering and connection of utilities and loop water system required by the City which would still require development in the mouth of the canyon, notwithstanding any efforts to locate the houses in other portions of the property. He stated that is where they have had difficulty being able to put a plan together because virtually any development there would require the mouth of Coal Canyon to be disturbed. 12/9/91 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 9, 1991 Page No.22 Mr. Mohler stated they will certainly put together a plan like that and let the Commission review the opportunities and the constraints and they will have it ready by the next meeting. Chairman Hellyer stated that plan should be into staff in time for them to give Commission their comments, and if, in fact, it is environmentally wrong, they would like to know it and added that is part of the process. He asked that the Mindeman access be highlighted and that the reasons be shown why it would not work. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of January 21, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. Commissioner Messe suggested they work with the School District between now and January 21st. Prepared by, _ 7q/6"' Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 12/9/91