Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/01/21 ~ ~ 5 ~ k -~ . f , rfr ~°. ;'~ MINUTES REGULA R MEETING OF T HE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINP rSA~IWI~ce~n~i ~;;,< DATE: January 21, 1992 ;.:_ ~"~ The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 9:15 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 1992, by the Chairman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being presets and ~ ij~; the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. ~, -,_~,~ , :•; , s,; ''._` ~~} ~:~ ~r .- ~' COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Heliyer Bouas, Bristol, Henninger, Messe, Peraza, Zemel COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Joel Flck Mary McCloskey John Lower Natalie Lockman Linda Johnson Jack Kudron Richard Mayer Ron Rothschild Edith Harris Planning Director Deputy Planning Director Traffic & Transportation Manager Assistant City Engineer Senior Planner Parks Superintendent Park Planner Administrative Services Director PC Support Supervisor AGENDA POS'[ING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m., January 16, 1992, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Hellyer explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on ftems of Interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. ~, 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 ~,roperty within the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence and by the Cleveland National Forest. 1/21/92 .t~: , 11 ~ . ,a . ~~,~ _ ~~ ~ ~~~ ' ~ ~w a ,,,, Y'. -. PAGE N0.2 fES, ANAHEIfJI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 '~~~~~ ;~ ~Rk~QUE$T: General Plan Amendment No. 317 (Portions 1 and 2) is a request for an amendment o `~~ leis land Use, Ernironmentai Resource and Management and Circulatoi`o~n 81 ~ ft~rted ~egteiest and 'ta~~ Anaheim General Plan. Portion 1 (nor<herly 663 acres) is a property- .~~',::Portion 2 (southerly 883.5 acres) is an Ar~.heim Planning Commission inY~Mfic Plaen fo~the northerly ~~. , '~ requested by the property owner is adoption of the Cypress Canyon Spec .,~~` -' G83. 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 f ' 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 duality Act (CEOA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEOA Guidelines. A Response to .; ~ ~„J Comments document has been prepared to address the public/responsible agency comment ress ~~ N the Draft EIR. At the time Draft EIR No. 298 was circulated for public review, theThe southerly h;;~i~,,;,~;,;. , Canyon project acreage included the entire 1,546.5-acre Coal Canyon property. ' ~ 883.5 acres has subsequently t•,een acquired by the Nature Conservancy (a non-profit organization acting on behalf of the State Department ofress lase habitat areathAs a resultdof sakinsale, th9n Board) for the preservatio~,i of a Tecate cyp 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 P nrtof n ermanent openespac8e for said area.rder for the General Plan to reflect the preservatlo p The General Plan Amendme~it request Includes, but is not Iimfted 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 Reskfentlal, school, park and open space land use designations, delete the Hillside Estate Density Residential land use designation, add the Medium Density Residential designation, fncrea~e residential densfties 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 locat(on of the fire station site and establish a sfte 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 existing Circulation Map for Portion 1 to establish revised alignments and road classifications for Coal Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ad d~innatfona nd namend the exlisting Env ronmental Resources and to delete the Coal Canyon Roe g Management Map for Portion 1 to establish revised locations and boundaries for the neighborhood park, open space, and bikew h revised boundariesrfosr openfspacertand?ocatones for traigls.borhood park designation and establis The proposed Cypress Canyon Specific r'!8n No. SP90~ (including Zoning and Development Standards and a Pubic 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 Improvl subtstationdsite,and one sneighborhoodeparkewers, public utilities, a fire station site, an electrica 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 1/21/92 x ~~ • ~ ~+'~ ~t ~~~ M UTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pl.ANt~iNG COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 PAGE N0.3 '~: ~! f.,., , :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 ~ ro rams, subdivision ans, grad(n rmfts, and other actions related to the ro ed - a.-~ ~~ development of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan Community. Y~'t,'.,.,.. .~._. u~a . ` Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, explained the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant at 'ft° ~„ ~~ ` the December 9, 1991, public hearing was to prepare several altematives evaluating preservation of x a wildlffe corridor on the property, as well as for staff to meet with the City of Corona relative to a }'~,~ , roadway extension between the City of Anaheim sphere of Influence and Corona's sphere of ~`~ Influence; and for staff and the applicant to meet relative to the zoning standands and canditlons of w{ , approval. She stated the applicant will provide an overview of the alternatives submitted and also -,~1~ .; ;.,: an overview of the condftions of approval. Ms. Johnson stated regarding the zoning and development standards, that the applicant had five ~fi^ main comments and the first related to the number of apartments in the RM 2400 Zone and as ,.y, currently stated In the proposed Zoning Code, all of the 423 units designated in the RM-2400 Zone z,, would be allowed for apartments or condominiums and staff had recommended that the applicant set forth a maximum of apartments in that zone, and they have proposed setting that maximum at 200 units. She explained the total number of apartments for the RM-2400 Zone would be 200 and the number of condominiums would 223, and all of those units would be built to the condominium standards and h does not mean that they would develop the maximum, but that is the maximum allowed overall which would mean 197 apartments in the RM-1200 Zone and 200 apartments in the RM-2400 Zone, for an overall total of 397 apartments, and staff does concur wfth the applicant's revised number of units. Gonceming flag logs, Ms. Johnson stated the applicant is still requesting the ability to put up to four flag lots with a single access off the street rind staff is still concerned about that type of design t be allowed. and recommends no more than two adjacent flag to s Ms. Johnson stated regarding setbacks in the RM-2400 and RM-1200 Zones, that the applicant was concerned relative to the yard setbacks, and distance between the buildings, and felt that adhering to the standards approved for the Mountain Park development would be too much of a burden on their RM-1200 Zone; and also !t did represent some larger setbacks than currently required under the RM-1200 Zone; and that the applicant's revised proposal is to maintain the same standards as Mountain Park for RM-2400 and adhere to their proposed standards for RM-1200 and staff concurs. She referred to the staff report for the last meeting and explained the applicant is now proposing yard setbacks similar to Mountain Park for the RM-2400 Zone and the same standards as currently proposed for the RM-1200 Zone. She stated the applicant has also Indicated concerns about staff's recommendations relative to commercial setbacks at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Coal Canyon Road and the applicant has prepared an exhibit which has not yet been presented to staff and staff has seen some preliminary designs but has not seen the final designs, but the applicant has said basically adhering to the current Code requirements presents a real hardship for that property given fts location next to the Riverside Freeway, as well as to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Coal Canyon Road. She added she has not seen that information as yet and would request that the applicant present that information 1/21/92 M Y~~ ~~~:, ._ • ~ . ~t s~, - ~r r" ~" x~ ~~ pb:~.: ~9NINUTE8, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.4 f ~ ~ r ~ . ~ ; to the Planning Commission. S Ms. Johnson stated the last issue related to the types and numbers of the RS-4000 single-family ,~, '~, ,~...: lots; that originally the applicant had proposed minimum 3600-square foot pad size and is now R ~~r {" raising that to 4000-square foot lot and pad sizes, as well as a minimum of 2096 of the lots being in .. ~.,,,,.;;~,~..: the,RS-4000 Zone. She explained their letter says they would be amenable to a condition ,~ ~` ~' - requiring no more than 2096 of the lots in the RS-4000 Zone to be at least 4500 square feet, and '' added staff concurs with that proposal. ~~. ;As. Johnson stated letters have been received ftom: Coal Canyon Company dated January 16, 1992 Fax ftom Mark Palmer, Mountain Lion Foundation, dated January 17, 1992 5r Fax ftom County of Orange dated January 17, 1992 r~a'~;; :_., Letter from Friends of the Tecate Cypress dated January 21, 1992 '~ ~: > `'~" Letter from Sierra Club -Angeles Chapter, received today ~, ::- She addom PauhBeleras well as a letter from the City of~Yorbaf Lindsay's meeting, there was a lette Commissioner Messe referred to a letter from the Department of Fish and Game dated January 21st, and asked ff anyone has had a chance to review all of the documents Just receNe~. Ms. Joh 21st andaletterhfrom the US Advocacy, Beuce Young,Drepresenting thesadjacent Corona January Highlands property dated January 15th. Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company, stated the staff report indicates on Fage 3 that there were certain open Items to be discussed; that he thought the most sfgniflcant testimony was by the Orange Unified School District wfth respect to a Memorandum of Understanding which was EIR and one oretwo conditions of approval land the ar ous mrot nitaincliortn ie, vironmentalggroupsths wfth regard to animal corridors. He stated they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Orange Unified School District and their representative Is present. He stated they have met wfth representatives of the Irvine Company and believe to the greatest extent possible that they have resolved most of the Issues. Mr. Mohler referred to the road linkage with the Ciry of Corona and indicated on Page 6 and 7 of the staff report, there is considerable narrative about staff's negotiations; that they have met with the owners and representatives of the Mindeman Ranch and ft is their position to continua sosome cooperate in a planning effort regarding the road linkage and if ft is possible, and ft apps additional environmental documentation will be required, but that tFcsy have committed cooperation. Concerning the Mountain Lion Alternative or Corridor issue, he stated they would Ifke to hear from the public and then discuss the Issue afterwards. He added the direction from the last meeting was to go ahead and prepare the plans to discuss the alternatives. Slides were present as follows: 1/21/92 a -t F i ~~ ~ ~ IUTES, ANAHDM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE NO. S ~ ~ r~ ~ Gypsum Canyon '' ;, ~ Owl. Rock operation ~~., ~ Mindeman Ranch ,~,, Development Area xy ' Approved Mountain Park development. ~ '~?. ~~ Surrounding developments ~' James O'Malley pointed out the Mountain Park Specific Plan Area, with approximately 8,000 °~ dwelling units and a little over 179 acres of commercial use; their proposed land use proposal of 1550 reskfentiai unfts and 8 acres of commercial at the mouth of the canyon; the Tecate Cypress } _ . ; Preserve sdd to the State of Calffomia in April 1991, and remnants of the Tecate Cypress grove ~~ which was preserved by the Mountain Park approval and continuation of the greenbelt; the Cleveland National Forest, the Corona Highlands proposal, Green River Golf Course, proposed ~~ residential/golf course use by the owners of the Green River Golf Course, the Dizabo Ranch ~- ,~,, property with an FIR currently certffied for 32 acres of commercial, 150-room hotel, basically zoned ~;~ for an Intense commercial use, property held by the State for a park, and' approved Bryant Ranch development of a little over 3400 unfts and the Dizabo industrial/commercial use. Mr. Mohler stated they provkled these studies to staff and assumed they were provkied to the Coalftlon groups as well. He referred to Concept A and pointed out this alternative deletes all _ development from the mouth of the canyon, anticipates the deletion of the connection from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Coal Canyon and concentrates ail their development of the western ridge adjacent to the Owl Rock operation. He stated it is basically a one way In and a one way out proposition and this particular staff report points out concerns about the gravity sewer down to the Santa Ana River and that ft has loop utility concerns that affect the water company. He explained they tried to follow the actual language. He stated this particular proposal reduces their project by 675 to 875 unfts and he thought it was represented at the last hearing that there would only be 400 to 450 unfts lost, so it is 50% higher. He stated regarding issues of concern that the fiscal impact report Is out of balance by $234,000, that the signal access from Gypsum Canyon is not safe for more than 400 unfts; that there Is an earthwork imbalance created and it would require substantial Import. He pointed out other projects have boon approved 1n various stages, damaging the potential for a viable corridor underneath the Coal Canyon interchange. He stated there was a suggestion that they swing Santa Ana Canyon Road through Gypsum Canyon and they first performed these studies that way and then were reminded that there is a Development Agreement on the Mountain Park project and changing that road would radically affect that project. Mr. Mohler referred to Concept B and stated >t is basically shown In the same geographic area and increases the densities, and they came up with approximately the same number of dwelling units they had before. He stated the fiscal Impact falls furihar to $329,000 in this case and they would have the same problem with single access and earthwork and having to Import material to get a balance. He referred to Concept C and stated at the Cammission's direction, they met wfth the various 1/21/92 ~ E ~ }` . '~~. ~ '~i:. ~, 'i; ' • NUTES, ANAHEIM CI1Y PLANNI'~FG COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.6 „w groups.to discuss what may be a viable alternative to their minds and their demands as far as f~=, takingaheir property or concentratt'ng their development became rather increased over what they . ~„+~`'--~'-were,originally. He explained those groups basica;ly requested that they retreat from a certain ridge - ,~ and:go westerly and coMlne the development even further towards Mountain Park and the results of that proposal drops their density by nearly 1,000 unfts to 560 units and not 450 as previously ;,,:._ ~~~" ~ ' Indicated. ", '? He stated the annual fiscal falls to $227,000. He explained they dkl include their alternative allar:!nent for Santa Ana Canyon R.ad through the Irvine Company propea to show that ft impacts over 40 scree !sf their R&D proposed development. He added in this case where they doubled the earth shortage, they would be required to Import 7 million cubic yards to balance the she and make ft safe for development. He added they nave the same safety concerns about the project and about approved adjacent developments. `° Mr. Mohler stated they tried to determine what 3t really means if they were stuck with that minor ~~ portion of the property that was developable and noted they can't have a 1500-unit cul de sac with 4,~' ~.~ ,.: , . `~~~~~:: one way in and one way out; and that they would have reduced the project to the Fire Department '°, . Ilmit of 400 units; and that the electrical substation and fire station are probably more financed by the adjacent property than them, and there is a fiscal short fall of $228,000, wfth single access which may result In Increased response time for fire, police and emergency services; and that there are earthwork imbalances of 5 to 7 million cubic yards. He stated they prepared a bridge concept that developed the western ridge to a maximum, with one way In and one way out through Street D and Gypsum Canyon Roads; and additionally ft brought Santa An• Canyon Road easterly and then bridged over the culvert which has been represented as being a potential corrklor, and that ft should be kept in mind that there is vehicular access tc the freeway by the Coal Canyon interchange. He stated this particular plan talks about 1,Q6f3 dwelling unfts, but the fiscal falls way off to $225,000; that the grades necessary to handle Santa Ana Canyon Road and the bridge structure average 1296 to reach the east ridge and the Fire Department is opposed to that concept. and they maintain their position that only 400 units would br, safe on that west ridge. He explained ther3 would be surph~s earthwork In this case which would require off-site disposal. He stated they are concerned also about what that proposal would do in eliminating the corridor. Mr. Mohler stated all of the wildlife concept ideas result in a minimum physical shortfall of $225,000 annually; that earthwork imbalance is crftical whether ft is import or export and there are safety and liability concerns regarding the Mountain Lion Corridor within the development, adjacent to the residential uses and there is knowledge of the adjacent approved projects and their Impact on this potential corridor and some of the safety issues with Fire, Police and Emergency Services. Mr. Mohler stated in the Responses to Notice of Preparation, there is an August 1, 1990, report prepared by Dr. Paul Beier, Project Leader, and Page 7 talks about the travel corridor as Chino Hills, and the 1st paragraph indicates that getting across Highway 91 to the Santa Ana River, 8 of the 11 culverts between Gypsum Canyon and Green River Interchanges fall to meet their criteria for diameter and visibility, and the next paragraph talks about one culvert which met the criteria and has potential value as a travel corridor, and that ft Iles about 1/4 mile east of the clubhouse for the k, 2x y4. . ; i~ixi~ti~i>: ~ ,.: 1/21/92 ,y L { t A t .. ~. ri f~ _' ~IlTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 :~r; 4~~~ i ~ PAGE N0.7 'J ~~~ ?; x~~ Green River Golf Course, and Is a concrete box 10-feet wide, 12 feet wkfe and about 150 feet ~" :long He pointed out the Coal Canyon Culvert is over 700 feet long. He continued that the ~} u'n"named canyon it serves is labeled as "B' Canyon and stated that canyon Is well wooded and has °'''t'~ - a'epring in its headlands and that it zecelves occasional use by cougars and could serve to channel ~` cougar movements towards the culvert. N:•:.. He stated the report then discusses en, vehicular underpasses, on page 8 as being Gypsum Canyon, Green River or Coal Canyon and K disqualifles the Gypsum Canyon underpass, once the brkige is opened. He referred to the Green River underpass and pointed it out on the exhibit, and noted ff is aone- ~~u~, lane paved road, 1 /4 mile west of the 'B' Canyon culvert, and that n opens Into the golf ccurse ~N ~ near the clubhouse and fronts the freeway until ft fume up B Canyon and thus; it essentially `~~ duplicates the access provided by that culvert. He stated when they originally started the plans, .~ they felt the duplication might be a positive because there is a certain amount of training In order :~ r for the cougars to be able to move over, the same way they retrained themselves when the Weir `~"`~~ `` `' Canyon and ranches were developed. He referred to Paui Befer's report, page 15, with a composite picture and read the second paragraph as follows: 'The most likely route into the Chino Hilis from Santa Ana River would be through the gdf course, all the way to Aliso Canyon. The addftion of waody cover to a large grassy field north of the gulf course would greatly widen this part of the corridor. B Canyon ends on a 12-foot box under Highway 91 and offers the best alternative to the Coal Canyon vehicle underpass....' Mr. Mohler stated they wanted to show that when they put this plan together, they were reading the documents and were thinking about this and thought their presentation will show that this Is a viable alternative and this document certainly makes that statement. James O'Malley, Coal Canyon Company, stated he was confused after the December 9th meeting an some of the wildlffe corridor Issues; that their EIR was prepared in 1990 and on August 11th, the City received a report prepared by Paul Beier dated August 1, 1990, which referred to this whole subject and it was the most accurate and probably was the only report on this entire subject; and that they used that report and came up with the altemative they are suggesting now In their EIR; that their EIR subsequently went out for public review in February 1991 and since that time, a lot of things have happened which he felt will make this wildlife alternative a more practical and feasible reality. Mr. O'Malley referred to the approval of Gypsum Canyon or the Mountain Park project and its contiguous band of open space and the Tecate Reserve, their sale In April 1991 of the 970 acres of property to the State of Calffornia for a permanent reserve cf open space and in addftion, W relationship has been built with their adjacent property owners since their alternative basically enters Into their property. He stated he has gone back out there and has Introduced himself to people who live on the properties and to the people who maintain the properties. He presented a slide of the subject culvert which is on their property and explained It is a 10'x12' box, which is a storm drain culvert 1/21/92 ..,,. *~~€ c'' _ - '. _ ; G"yv '~~ '~ TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,19®2 PAGE N0.8 ,~, ~' and it is over 700 feet long. He stated Paul Beler's report mentions there was really no set criteria fora wlldlffe corridor, so .he developed some, and one criteria was apposRe and visible view as you ~ :1~ enter. He added you definitely cannot see the end of the tunnel in the slide. F`;. , ~ ,; Several slkles of dffferent views of that culvert were shown, {n addition to the surrounding area , ~,~ y ' ~ and where the culvert on their property terminates at the stables. He explained that travelway for ~~ ~_~' the Ilons towards the Chino Hills is .7 mile through the stables, golf course and around Sculley Hlil. }~~,~,; ~.~ A ~ Mr. O'Malley stated he has heard some comments about the topography and that the B Canyon >"=~< alternative is not viable because of the steep topography and these slkfes show the Coal Canyon ~` topography, which is very similar to the entire area ftom Gypsum to the Green River Golf Course, ' ~; with steep grades and mountainous features, etc. kr1~`' He stated part of the criteria as stated in the report Is that there Isn't any possibility of a mountain *,~~1~ ~ ~ Ilon corridor ff there is human activity; and that he wanted to illustrate how much human activity is ~?~.r,,.. - there on the stable property,. He referred to Slim Hart who has maintained the stable property for .:,;;:,,, years and noted he is present today to speak an this Issue, po!nting out that his office, and also trailers where people are housed, are about fifty feet from the proposed corridor, the hayrkfe operation, fencing, paths, Santa Ana River culvert, Mindeman Ranch, construction for the 91 /Coal Canyon Interchange, and the underpass. ,~ , Commissioner Messe clarified that an EIR has been approved for commercial use on the stable property by the City of Yorba Linda. Mr. O'Ma~ley stated their altemative in the EIR calls for two crossings and the first one is the Mindeman crossing and it Is more of a urban looking culvert because h is a driveway for the previous owner. He referred to Paul Beler's report and stated they used that as a base, and read from Page 7, ..'one culvert met the criteria and is of potential value as a travel corridor. This culvert Iles about 1 /4 mile east of the clubhouse for the Green River Golf Course and is a concrete box 10' wide, 12' high, 150' feet long. The unnamed canyon K serves is labeled as B Canyon. Although B Canyon is not long, it is well-wooded and has a spring in fts headlands. It probably receives occasional use by cougars and can serve to channel cougar movement toward the culvert. On fts north end, the culvert meets the Santa Ana River at the Green River Golf Course. B Canyon ends at the 12-foot box under Highway 91 and offers the best alternative to the Coal Canyon vehicle undercrossing as away to cross the freeway.' He stated the culvert obviously meets the criteria and pointed out that it is visible at each end; and stated there vas an argument that cougars many times use roads and pointed out that road is 10 feet away, adjacent to B Canyon. He stated that is an exhibit showing that as the most direct route which the cougars would take, ff given the opportunity. A slide was presented showing both culverts (B Canyon and the Mindeman undercrossing). He read from Dr. Beler's report as follows: "For cougars to find this route in the future, it would require exploration and trial and error of learning. For this reason, it would be most helpful to minimize human activities and enhance woody vegetation." He added they are recommending ail 1/21/92 ~ ;~ ~. ~ '~ i; ANAH~M CfTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.9 ~~ ~' ~: `of those things in their altemathre. ~.,;. ,,~ 4 Mr. O'Malley stated it has been suggested that they provide suggestions, recommendations, or s ~~'' ?kleas for this altemative corridor to become a reality and read the following: 'A minimum 500-foot ~``'J ` wkfe dedication of a conservation easement shall be recorded for the length of the design of the ~t `' designated corridors ftom the Riverside Freeway right of way to the Cleveland National Forest sa;~, ; boundary; any development adjacent to the dedicated corridor shall be buffered with a combination r ~ 1. of fencing, where appropriate, and native landscaping to visually screen human related activities ~ ~; v r ~ ' and minimize noise, night Ilghttng and human intrusion, etc. Both ends of the Mindeman underpass and the B Canyon culvert shall be enhanced with native vegetation to provide cover. Road crossings of each quarter shall be limited to and shall be in the form of elevated bridges or box culverts a minimum of 20 feet wide and 15 feet high. The spring in B Canyon shown on the ~ ,, Black Star USGS Quadrangle shall be preserved and other wildlife water sources shall be provided `'~~ - ~' along each corridor, such that there Is a permanent wildlife water source at approximately the mid- point between the Riverside Freeway ;end the Cleveland National Forest. ~~ ~:_ Paul Beier, resident of San Juan Capistrano, stated his August, 1930, report has been discussed; however, a lot of things have been left out; that well in advance during the NOP phase, he took a field trip with representatives of the Hon Company, and they walked parts of these corridors and they I~ad more information than just what was in the report In terms of why Coal Canyon was a superior alternative. He stated also in the original report, there was a third very Important criteria, and that (s the location; that the corridor at the mouth of the Coal Canyon has a big natural funnel and there is a major drainage with many sub-drainages and it is a natural travel route for animals ` and they are drawn to that undercrossing and this is probably the most Important criteria and it was mentioned in that August 1990 report. He stated Coal Canyon by virtue of its topography and .:s ability to funnel animals to the freeway at that point in by far the best alternative; and that he did say that B Canyon Es the second best altemative. He stated starting in June 1991 and the months thereafter, they have checked both the B Canyon culvert and the Coal Canyon culvert and have documented nineteen trips by cougars through the Coal Canyon culvert and none through the B Canyon culvert, and emphasized that is the second best altemative, but fs not very good. He stated originally in his report he had indicated he thought the animals would use that vehicle underpass and not the culvert, and noted they are side by sk1e. He explained from one entrance of the culvert, you cannot see the other end. Responding to Chairman HAllyer, Dr. Beier stated in his August 1990 report, he surmised and admitted that they had no criteria and no one has studied what access the animals would use, but that he knew Coal Canyon was a natural funnel and referred to two animals who tried to cross the freeway and were killed. He added ' ~ assumed they would take the vehicle underpass, but was surprised to find that they prefer the culvert. He stated that does confirm the overwhelmingly important factor of location and this is wt:sre the animals want to cross the freeway and this is what draws them there. He stated another paint he made in one of his more recent reports and during the field trip before the draft EIR was written was that main access by which cougars get into B Canyon is via Coal Canyon and they come up the major east draw of Coal Canyon and added they have documented that by following radio- collared animals and they get to B Canyon through the project area and they do not come over the top of Sierra Peak. 1/21/92 ~s .. ....,._ :;;~,,.- `~ ,_.~:} ~_. ~}n ~. . ~ ;MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE NO.10 ~~ ~, . ' Dr:.Beler stated he felt there was very selective representatic:^ of this August 1990 report and. ;tie `subsequent reports, ail of which are a part of the administrative recoM. He vdunteered to take the entire staff for a hike for a day and walk alt three of these corrWors. Concerning human activity along the wffdlffe corridor, he explained he had saki there should not be any night time activities, especially by vehicles at high speeds and added there are pienty of places in rural areas where mountain lions walk through people's backyards and homes on 10 and 20•acre lots are not an Impediment to mountain Ilons, but many homes per acre is a dead brick wall to animals. He referred to the slkfes showing the Santa Ana River as a concrete ditch and stated that is downstream from the w(Idlffa corridor which the mountain lions actually use and they do not have to cross that fence or the concrete ditch. ~~ ~~ `~~ ' ~j'A , _~.~_ Dr. Baler stated he wanted to summarize some of the points he had intended to make today; that the main thing he wanted to stress is the importance of the Cit4 participating in Coordinated Resource Management Planning; that during their me6;E:~g of December 20th with the Hon Company, Mr. O'Malley pointed out that there are a lot of other threats to the corridor and some have been mentioned today; that there is the Saba property, the Metropolitan Water District Is contemplating putting a 14-foot pipe down the river channel, that Caltrans wants to add 4 lanes to the freeway; and the Mountain Park proposed development is close to the wildlife corridor . He added Mr. O'f:~alley had said that one might question their sincerity and that they should be addressing the entire corridor and not just the Hon Company and that he would agree. He stated he has been trying to do that very aggressively over the last several months and has called Caltrans many times and had meetings with them, etc. He stated he would continue to do all he could to make sure that each Zink in the corridor is protected. He stated there is a much better method to plan for the whole corrkfor, but it requires voluntary joliit planning by the responsible agencies and ft Is salted a Coordinated Resources Management Planning Process (CRMPP). Dr. Baler stated the one new point he wanted to make is that he has called several of the relevant players and asked ff they wanted to participate and all of them were interested and they have offered to send letters, and a couple have arrived, but more are on the way; that additional letters are to come from the U.S.Fish and Wiidlffe Service, California Fish and Game, Caiffo-nia Department of Parks and Recreation, U. S. Forest Service, and the Nature Conservancy. He ciarfffed that he had not contacted the City of YorLa Linda in this regard. Commissioner Masse refP: red to the entitlement un tine stable property for commercial development and askcY; ff ihat eliminates the corridor, .r. esse~n:a. Dr. Baler responded it would ff h were built and stated that entitlement has existed since 1962 when it was envisioned to be a hotel built in conjunction with what was planned to be Olympic shooting events In Coal Canyon and the City of Yorba Linda Planning staff believes that K is not economically feasible to develop, according to a conversation this morning. He stated the Hon Company representative indicated when he talked to them about a year ago, that that property cannot develop until utilities are brought to the site by the development of Cypress Canyon. He 1/21/92 • K~ 5~ ~; .. 1L~ -_ ~ _ INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~a COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE NC~.11 . `:.~ ~' hated"wfth,the approval of this project, they will have their utflfties, but until that happens, that ~ = ; parcel is quite likely not going to be developed. T Chairman Hellyer stated blocking this project will also block that project. qtr `~ Dr. Baler responded that is correct, but a better way he thought to do k would be through the (CRMPP) process where they have that land owner and the Clty of Yorba Linda negotiating; that %?:. ~' P p pArty; and that Coltrane Is ve r;, a~.?, ,. obviously that Iattd owner deserves some com ensation for the ro ry > ~~ inte-ested in participating in this process and in conjunction wfth the fteeway widening, are -~~: ~ robabl willin to s end some mitt lion mone He added he thou ht if all those a encies ;:, ~~,.,; P Y 9 P 9a y. 9 9 ~y, ~ ° Interested in preserving the corridor were negotiating, they would be able to come up with a solution. He stated the CRMMP process could do some other things that can't be done here, such as addressing the Issue of who is going to pay for land that is not going to be dedicated as a r ~" ' ~ condftion of approval. ~~~, r Chairman Hellyer asked the results tl the owners of the Saba property were to build on their entB~ements. Dr. Beier stated ire has not seen their plans but assumed N that property was developed with a hotel and commercial uses, it would kill the corridor. Chairman Hellyer stated those entitlements are in place and asked ff Dr. Baler was imrolved when that EIR action took place. Dr. Beier stated he H :.s in Michigan Ir: 1982. Dr. Beier stated he hoped this matter would be continued today because there Is a lot of information that just came out such as the feasibility analysis wh!ch came out four days ago and there was a 3-day holiday weekend. He stated they have not yet even seen Volume 2 of the Response to Comments and he hoped there would not be a vale today. Bruce Young stated he is representing the two property owners of the parcel noted on the map as adjacent development, and explained that is actually separate parcels and separate corporations. He pointed out that approximately 180 ands are in Orange CRUnty and if this area is annexed, ft would be within Anaheim's spherfwf-influence. He ?:iu9d that in the future they may be back in front of the Commission asking to have this area an~~exed to the City of Anaheim. He explained one of their deep concerns Is that thr~se are two separate parcels and separate corporations and they want to makE~ sure that they do not become landlocked. He stated since the meeting on December 9, they have met with the Coal Canyon Corrcpany and they have been extre~rrely helpful and they have to jointly approach the problem and he thought, hopefully, develop a solution that makes it possible for both projects to proceed. He added they are very supportive of what the Hon Company ir, trying to do with this development. He explained they have developed three separate alternatives of possible linkages, two by Coal Canyon Company and the other by their planner. He stated they do not wish to have a regional linkage, and want to have a secondary project linkage t~ allow some kind of flow. ~~, 1/21/92 ^ ~ He stated they also think Inasmuch as they have an access problem, they also can offer some solutions to the wildlffe corridor issue because they are sensitive to that need. He stated there has ~~ been a lot saki about the B Canyon and they really believe that it can be developed Into a potential '''`~ ~ wiiildlife corridor and their suggestion fs that they sit down with the City of Anaheim, the Cfty of Corona and the County of Riverside to develop ~; contingent agreement that would link the access along with the wildlffe corridor and he thought they can come up with an access that will not ~:" threaten or endanger the wildlffe wRh vehicular traffic and a dedicated corridor, plus a passageway °~ ` under the 91 freeway which would not be used by cars or any other vehicle traffic. r He added he wanted to be sure that all the projects are considered and that they appreciate all the recommendations from the developer and their consultants. He stated before they agree to any condftions, they would Ilke to Involve all the agencies. Douglas Padley stated he Ilves in Corona and is President of the Southern Caiffornia Chapter of the Wlldlffe Society. Regarding the fiscal analysts, he stated they question the assumption the fiscal analysis is based on; that the fiscal analysis dated December 1991 shows a not revenue to the City of $47,074, and the fiscal analysis associated with the feasibility study for the wildlffe corrkor shows a net revenue to the City for the proposed project of only $25,000. He stated they question whether the occupancy of the hotel will be at 65% or 16% when it is completed five years after the project and they question whether the housing values used in this fiscal analysis are going to be the housing values which the houses will be sold at and the taxes paid to the City are going to be there. He stated the housing market in Southern Calffomia is extremely soft right now and drops In values are considerable right now and a drop of 5% (n the value of these homes would mean a loss of approximately $23,000 and those two things combined would turn the fiscal analysis from a net revenue to the City to a net deficit. Mr. Padley suggested that a decision be postponed until a further analysts is done and up to date numbers are used Instead of numbers from January 1990. He stated in addition, they asp that the City participate to the CRMMP process on this project. Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission has an updated revision of the fiscal analysis, as of this month. Mr. Padley stated the fiscal analysis referenced in the Corridor report indicated revenue to the Clty of $25,000. He explained the difference between the two is that they are based on different occupancy rates of the hotel. He stated they would like to see an adjustment of the housing rate to see ff that has been documented. Mr. Padley stated he did go to the City of Yorba Linda to talk abo~n the Saba project with the City ~!anners and they do not believe that a hotel is viable at Coal Canyon, regardless which side of the freeway h is on. Saba A Saba, 41309 Avenida Beona, Temecula, stated he owns the property known as the SAVI property; that he bought that property In 1977 and has never heard about mountain Ilons in that area; that that property has been leased and he has talked to the lessee several times and that he 1/21/92 -emu .5. ',~ f ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ • VUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 PAGE N0.13 x 1?4; ~,' '~~ probably heani about or saw one or two mountain Ilons during that time and that he understood a ~~:°_: mountain Ilon was killed by a truck on the fteeway. He stated this property was annexed to the City M`~ Hof Yorba Linda in 1982 and that ha has a development agreement with the City of Yorba Linda for V development of that property which is about 32 acres and the City of Yorba Linda at that time wanted him to develop that property exclusively commercial for a tax base and that it had nothing ~~ ~ to do with the shooting events for the Olympics. ~~~:: . Mr. Saba explained he did not develop the property because he did not really agree with what was proposed; that ha had this property in escrow with IDM, a developer of shopping centers, etc., and K was In escrow for S13 million, plus 1096 equity, so the property value was almost S17 million. He stated hotels are now in a slump and whether the property is viable for a hotel is questionable right now, but that he did tack wfth the Vice President of the Marriott Hotel and they are Interested in a she In that area. ~a~:~,;• '~~''`~"' He stated that property is also being used as a BMX bike ridir•,g area where the children ride and ~.~`~~< ~, with people coming from all cver the country for about three events a year (10,000 or 15,000 M1 • people attending those events). 'f~ Silm Hart stated he lives at Coal Canyon and that he really does not kn:,w what is going on; that he has six dogs who live there and they stay right behind his house and stay there all the time and he knows when a mountain Ilon comes through there and there has not been any for a long time and he does not know why everybody is talking about the mountain lions. He stated when they used to come through there, they would kill a colt or a calf, and they had two dogs killed, etc. Mr. Hart responded to Chairman Heilyer that he had not had an animal lost in several years. He stated the mountain lions cross at the Green River Golf Course and the mate to the one that was killed stayed there along the river for about six werks and killed several animals. He stated they know when the Ilons are there because the dogs are right at the entrance to that tunnel. Commissioner Bristol asked ff the mountain lions come through the culvert or the underpass under the ireewa~r. Mr. Hart stated his dogs are right where they come out at the culvert and for a long time there has not been any mountain ilons through there. Chairman Hellyer noted that Mr. Hart would have to move when they start to build and Mr. Hart responded that he realized he was only there for a short time and that the property would eventually be developed. Steve Loe, wlldlffe biologist, stated he works for the Forest Service and has been working in this area for six or seven years and has done studies for the County and the Transportation Corridor Agency regarding mountain Ifons, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, raccoons, and all the animals who use this area. He stated Paul Beier fs one of the most respected mountain Ilon biologist in the country and that he had radios on the mountain lions which !old him where they were going and he knows there were nineteen crossings. He added earlier this year that he found a crossing through the culvert and this is ail new information which they are gaining since 1982 and this information was not known in 1982. 1/21/92 t- ~~'ts'i. .. , He stated the Coal Canyon Company worked wfth them to try to come up with an alternative but tFiey have_not all sat down together and tried to work out a solution to this. He added he Is asking ~^ ~ ` the Planning Commission today to enter Into a Coordinated Resource Management Planning process; that ft is a statewide process and is used by a lot of state agencies and that Caltrans, which has a big irnestment, has indicated a willingness to work something out. Heir nveestments and their entitlemerKstand that a commeaciaPdevelopment can be ddeveloped on the that acreage and still preserve the corridor. He stated he would suggest the Commission delay a decision today because, as stated by one of the Commissioners, they have not had time to review all this information; and that a lot of people were on vacations with their families and they have new information which was presented and there are agreements with adjacent landowners which involve other counties and cities. Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission has not had a chance to review the information handed out today, but has reviewed all the other information. Mr. Loe stated not everybody who commented is here today and not everybody who wanted to be here today can be here today. tie stated he has offered his assistance to the City to help wfth the Coordinated Resource Management Plan and that he thought the developer, the City, Forest Service, Caltrans, and Orange County should get together. He added he has a slide show which he got ftom the State which shows how the process works. Commissioner Messe asked how long the process takes generally. Mr. Loe responded that depends on what the Issues are and stated he saw ft work in Garner Valley in RNerskle County which was a whole valley with hundreds of owners and they worked out a solution to their problems in six months to a year. He added in this case they are focused on one issue, and he thought h could be done in three to six months. A copy of Mr. Loe's comments were provided to staff. Connie Spenger, 1318 E. Glenwood, Fullerton, President of the Friends of the Tecate Cypress, stated they have worked for 10 years to preserva the Tecate Cypress and buffer lands around the Tecate Cypress and the rare species and other wildlife associated wfth them. She explained she wants to respond to what has been sold today and also present new information. Chairman Hellyer asked that the letter not be read which has been submitted already and is part of the record. Ms. Spenger stated 4he SpecHlc Plan should be recirculated because this is a new project area which has not been recirculated to the public because of the State purchase and for that reason alone, the EIR should be recirculated to the public. Ms. Spenger referred to the activity at night in the stable area and stated the picture shown o! the 1/21/92 ;, ~. ~7 {ti' PAGE NO.15 graphy of Coal Canyon left out that ff the animals were to use the B culvert or Mindeman, they ild have to cross that topography, and using the Coal Canyon crossing, they ga down the es, wfth the topography. She stated the cougars do not necessarily go around Sculley HiII, and they go up the ridges. She ~_`~~ stated the mountain Ilon kill which Slim Hart mentioned was in 1982 or 1983 and it was hR on the freeway. She stated anyone could show the Commission the mountain Ilon tracks, and noted Mr. Hatt is in Oregon a lot with a new ranch there and she has been there looking at horses, etc., and a lot of times is told Slim is in Oregon, so maybe even ff there was a mountain Ilon going through, he would not have seen K. a Ma. Sponger stated they do request eat the two letters dated January 21st submitted earlier be ;`~ a~~ ' made a part of the administrative record. She stated they also submitted copies of Jim Dice's ~~_,~,,, r. thesis. She stated the Commissioners should have time to at least review that because ft Is not just <~;"'~;~;; the wildlffe their organization is tacking about, but there are a lot of rare species on that ridgallne. ., ~` ~ `~ Chairman Hellyer responded to Ms. Sponger that both their letters are being made a part of the administrative record. She asked to read parts of the letters and noted h is new material and that maybe some of the other people would at least like to know what they have handed in. She stated they would also like to recommend the Coordinated Resource Management Plan and that they think that could possibly find a solution to this problem of how to preserve a wildlffe corridor and preserve the wildlffe throughout the region. She added they also request that the City modify the General Plan to delete development In the far northeast corner of the Mountain Park project. She stated they do remind the Commission that the Coal Canyon property is on Acquisition Priority List 2A for the Department of Fish and Game. She stated the California Environmental Quality Act says that any plant or animal that meets the criteria for being listed should be treated as listed and explained they are referring to the chaparral beargrass. Ms. Sponger stated regarding the Mindeman Ranch, that the geology there consists of a landslide on top of an earthquake fault and is not suited to building any kind of arterial connection; that the Commissioners are probably familiar with the hill where the Green River Goif Course buildings are located and stated it was once part of where the Mindeman Ranch r.~!+w sits and they dammed the Santa Ana River to make a lake; that a giant landslide occurred there and caused that hill and the other part of that landslide still perches on the Mindeman hillside; that the VYhittier/Elsinore fault also runs through the ranch and a pair of golden eagles dkl and may still nest on the Mindeman Ranch, so it is probably not real practical to think about putting an arterial from the Mindeman Ranch to the Coal Canyon property. She stated they would also like to object to the extension of Santa Ana Canyon Road from the west to Coal Canyon because it would have impacts on wildlffe movements; that concerning the Mountain Lion Technical Feasibility Study, they request that analysis of the new pads there be based on available dirt for the cut and fill and not on the old plan. She added they are also 1/21/92 a ti" ~'~ ~,.. ,~ ~ f • ~~-~' ~~' ~, lTES-ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.16 ,.~;;,: wondering why a sewer main would be needed for any of those when h would be natural for K to ^'` :flow downhill, out the mouth of Gypsum Canyon. ~;~,~ t ,. Ms. Sponger stated it Is their understanding that the Saba property is now zoned 'Open Space' and`that no specffic plan is in effect for the property. (Chairman Hellyer stated there is a letter in y he EiR Response to Comments which indicates that the City of Yorba Linda has approved commercial entitlements on that property.) It was noted there may not be a specific plan on that property, but the entftements are there. f~a" Ma. Sponger stated they understood that if there Is no specific plan, there can't be a zoning ,, change. She further explained they are questioning the comments In the Response to Comments that they have entitlements for commercial development and that they are also questioning the ,~ ' reality of the drawings in the feasibility study. ,~~~r,~ -~r ~ ` ` She stated concerning the Jobs/housing balance, that a 596 increase is called for and that Mountain ~'="~a~~~~~~ ~ ~.~ Park brings the increase to 13496 and all the alternatives submitted bring Anaheim way over the '+ amount of housing needed to balance the job/housing ratio; and that means H Anaheim tops its 596 additional projected dwelling units, other cities may approve lower numbers Improving their fiscal ','' situation at the expense of Anaheim's because dwelling units tend to be a drain on City finances. She referred to minutes submitted of a Han Company meeting and stated K fs their feeling that they are not necessarily accurate in that detailed land use statistics were not presented, etc. Dr. David Kossack, 39 South Lucinda, Laguna Beach, stated he is an Open Space Commissioner for the City of Laguna Beach, and Chair of the Canyons Committee of the Sea and Sage Audubon, and submitted a letter for the record. He stated they are very concerned about the incremental loss of habitat and the loss and Impacts to quality to the roots between these habitats; that regarding the lack of awareness of mountain Ilons around the horses and cattle, he stated mountain Ilons are experts at stalking and stealth and if they were heard by every animal, they would go hungry. He stated they would urge the City to postpone a decision on Cypress Canyon and also to initiate the Coordinated Resource Management Plan and closely examine the valuable resources that are present at Coal Canyon. Tom Tait, 7714 Rainview Court, off Weir Canyon, stated he is probably one of few Anaheim residents speaking today and that he is concerned about the safety, and explained he has three small children and worries about a lot of things, but did not want to worry about a mountain Ilon in the area. He added he is not sure that h Is prudent to have a mountain Ifon habtat adjacent to residential areas. He stated another issue is that this company wants to develop and right now in this economy, that equates to a lot of jobs for the people of Anaheim at a time when the construction industry is probably beyond a recession, and denial of a project like this means killing hundreds of jobs. Rick Williamson stated he lives in Lake Forest and that he works for the two owners of the property on a contract basis and has had the pleasure of being in Coal Canyon for over nine years; that he maintains the fences, the fire roads, etc. and that he knows who is there and who is not supposed to be there and that he knows what kind of animals run on the property. He explained Hon uses his services on an individual basis and he is there a lot of the time, at least one or two visits to the ~~~.~r 1/21/92 a~ 1 :S, ANAHEINI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 ,~ ~~- a~. y^ ,~ ~;: ~c~ ~` _. ~U PAGE N0.17 ~~ property per week. He explained he hunts there and knows what animals run the culvert and there ~:• n,,;~:;;~'are'not very many mountain Icons in the area. '. ~''~~''Ntr, Williamson referred to a report which comes from the state of Monf~ana and explained it states " that people and mountain Icons do not mbc. He stated he will lose about a 1600-acre playground, ff „this .property is developed and there is no reason for him to say there are no mountain Icons, 'except that is what he has seen, and that Hon Development owns this private property which has been trespassed upon by a number of different organizations and he has asked some of the same people speaking here today to leave the property and they have cut the chains and installed their own locks. Dr. Baler stated nineteen crossings do not mean nineteen different animals, and for the record, the night attar one of those crossings, he did call the consultant for the Hon Company and invked him to come look at the tracks, and there were lots of tracks there In the mud. Steve Loe stated they talked about children and the threat of mountain Ilon attacks and added mountain Icons and people are already in contact and the whole Gypsum Canyon perimeter Is going to be lined with mountain Mons and people sharing the same area; that h will be the same in Coal Canyon, even if h is blocked off; that Coal Canyon will abut a school and a park, and he felt the fact that there were nineteen crossings without any animals or people getting hurt, means there is no Impact and those Mons have teamed to move through there to the Chino Hills area. He stated a lot of the chltdren come into the National Forest to ;earn about environmental education and this is a very environmentally aware school system, and they are teaching them how to protect special areas and this is a special area and asked that we show the children we can work out a solution to protect this special area and not make one of thR b!ggest ecological disasters that has been made in this region in a long time. Gordon Ruser, 1221 South Sycamore, Santa Ana, referred to a letter from Ken Crocker, Chair of the Angeles Chapter, and stated he is representing the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter wfth 64,000 members and more in Orange County and Los Angeles County combined into the Angeles Chapter. He stated at the previous meeting on December 9th, that he made a verbal comment regarding two different resolutions by the Angeles Chapter, one of October 19, 1989, which says the Sierra Club supports preservation and protection in their natural states of Laguna, Sllverado, Trabuco, Mole:.ka and other undeveloped canyons in Orange County; and that he also pointed out that as an undeveloped canyon, Coal Canyon was covered by that resolution. He referred to a letter dated December 21 by the Angeles Chapter to the City of Anaheim Planning Commission, which was actually delivered to the Planning Department of the C(ty of Anaheim on December 30, 1991, and stated he has a feeling the Planning Commission might not have received that letter. He explained the letter the Commissioners received today has a double stamp because for some reason the letter turned in on December 30th had not been made available to the Commissioners. Commissioner Masse stated he had received a copy of that letter previously. Mr. Ruser read the following from the April 18, 1991, resolution by the Angeles Chapter Executive Committee: 'The Sierra Club supports the acquisition of the entire Coai Canyon property by a public or private land protection agency for the protection of the rare Tecate Cypress and 1/21/92 VUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 x" PAGE N0.18 associated rare species and for the maintenance of a 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.'. He stated they think it would be best ff the entire property was not annexed to the City of Anaheim and that a purchase could be arranged for the property by use of public funds. He stated the offer would need to come from public agencies and that the Sierra Club does not have the funding that would be needed to purchase the property. y~~`~>`i He stated the fact should be considered that the proposed development in terms of fiscal return to '~ ~ ` . the City Is less than $26,000 a year, five years after buiidout; and added that is from the latest ~~~~ report he has read and that there is a later report. He stated the Mountain Uon Corridor Stud~~ ~~` ~ -: states that there is a very marginal fiscal return to the City, less than x26,000 a year, five years after buildout. He added h doesn't seem the City of Anaheim would be gaining very much; and that ft is their opinion that it would be best ff the entire north end of the property remained as part ~~ ~ ~ of a nature preserve added to the Coal Canyon Tecate Cypress Reserve. He added they have ~«~ been asking various public agencles and Individuals to petftlon that funding be made available to f`. purchase the north end of the Coal Canyon property. He stated there might be funding from Proposition 70; and that Proposftion 117, the Mountain Lion Inftiative, is Intended to provide $30 million a year for 30 years for the purchase of w11dIHe corridors that may be used by mountain Ilons in the State of CalHomia and for other purpases. Mr. Ruser stated those are sources of funding that may be looked Into and they hope that public agencies and such people as State Senators and Assembly people can be persuaded to derive funding from those sources to buy out the Coal Canyon property. He stated this is in accordance with the intention of the Sierra Club Angeles resolution. He added the Sierra Club has no funding to purchase property and no formal presentation or proposal to buy the property has been made by the Sierra Club, which should be done by public agencles. He stated the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter requests that the Anaheim Planning Commission postpone a decision on this matter until representatives of all public agencies and representatives of Conservation groups have had time to review the latest Rasponse to Comments. He added only this morning they saw one copy of the latest Response to Comments on the Planning Department - counter, and that members of conservation groups have not been provided with copies of that latest document. Responding to Chairman Hellyer, Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, explained there were are about eight copies of the Response to Comment document for public review sent to the Canyon Hills library and that was indicated in the staff report, and that was sent out on Friday, and also a copy was sent to the Central L(brary and there are supposed to be five copies at the Planning Department counter. She stated the Planning Commission staff report came out Frkfay afternoon. Chairman Hellyer stated he was sure that Mr. Ruser knew that those documents were available. Mr. Ruser stated Ms. Johnson just spoke about Friday when the documents became available and did not state when those documents were made available at the public libraries. 1/21/92 ~:' ~.. Y~ ~a~A~* 1. fES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PACE N0.19 ?`I k~':i d ~~ Ms. Johnson stated those documents were made avallable on Friday i~long with the staff report. Mr.:fiuser stated the existence of the Response to Comments was not made known to them and '' >;''added he did receive a co of the staff re ort here at the C of Anaheim Plannin De artment '~ desk on Frida afternoon, but was not made aware that there was any Response to Comments Y documents being made avallable to the public libraries or that they were here at the City of ~~~~ Anaheim Planning Department desk. He added he doubted that any of the public agencies such as ,., .. ~~~-', California Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservztion Board, or the United States Department of Fish and Game have had any time to review these documents since they were made available to the public Ilbrarles on FrkJay afternoon and added it is questionable that any of those Response to Comments documents have been made available to any of the public agencies within that short period of time. Commissioner Messe pointed out the information was fn the staff report which Mr. Ruser picked up on Friday. Mr. Ruser stated ff the document was made avallable to the public Ilbrarles on Friday afternoon, ~~~ they probably would not have been available to any of the public agencies within that short period of time; and that most public agencies have to receive these documents weeks In advance In order _ to respond; that ff they had been expected to receive such Response to Comments documents yesterday, that was impossible because all the postal delivery was shut down due to a holiday and If they received them on Saturday, they would not have reviewed them until today. He stated it is unlikely that they could have responded in a meaningful way even if they had received those comments this morning in the mail. ,(~'~~~~I~2 Mr. Ruser referred to their letter of December 30, ~, 1991. which was again stamped this ~~ z2~y morning and made available to the Commissioners with two stamps at the bottom of the same i1 letter. He asked that that letter be made a part of the administrative record, along with the two U page letter submitted by the Friends of the Tecate Cypress and the four page letter submitted by the Friends of the Tecate Cypress earlier today, along with the 203-page thesis by Jim Dice on various plant species; and that the Planning Commission postpone a decision until they have time to review the documents. Mr. Buser stated in 1991 on two different occasions, he has seen mountain Ilon tracks in the Caltrans box culvert under the Riverside Freeway at the mouth of Coal Canyon and those tracks were shown to him by Dr. Paul Beier, and more recently within the past two months, after the December 9th meeting, probably a fow days later, he went out to the box culvert and saw mountain Ilon tracks again. He stated on the previous occasion in 1981, the tracks were headed north towards Chino Hills State Park on the west side of the box culvert and on the more recent occasion, December 1991, he saw mountain Ilon tracks heading south on the east side of the box culvert, towards the goal Canyon property. He stated also in 1991 on several occasions in the Tecate Cypress Reserve area, he has seen mountain Ilon tracks em'oedded in the mud along the ridgeline roadway, so they know the mountain lions are there. He stated those are very distinct tracks and were seen over a number of months by several different people. Mr. Ruser stated the proposed Cypress Canyon development places an elementary school in the bottom of Coal Canyon and not only is the ridgeline that divides Coal from Gypsum Canyon being 1/21/92 ''y~.,` ':?.e._ ~'~ '~i~ used by mountain Ilons for travel in the area, but K is also known that tha bottom of Coal Canyon 1s used. by mountain Ilons as they approach the wDdlffe corridor at the mouth cf Coal Canyon and ~~?~' the Cypress Canyon project places an elementary school to the bottom of that canyon In the direct '~ path of the mountain Ilon movements. He rsked ff is wise or safe to have an elementary school .,. placed immediately adjacent to a wild Ilon area where mountain Ilons are know to move about. Chairman Heltyer asked Mr. Mohler to address the issue regarding the CRMPP. ~r~ ;' ~z ~iY ~~ ~~ "~' ,~ lY ff _ ,:-IB., y .. . f i Mr. Mohler stated they have followed the process required by CEQA and to them the CRMPP process is something new and uncharted and h doesn't appear to them to be a properly mandated group and they are opposed to dealing with ft; that they have dealt with it actually day by day, and one speaker talked about solutions and added the developer has developed solutions, but the reaction from the groups about going forward with an unofficial CRMPP process, is an even greater request, a tightening of the noose on this particular project. He stated they think they have informally conducted the very same thing and would like the CEQA process to stand and to continue moving forward with the project. He stated Ignoring strong language like ecological disasters and ignoring the comments about the response to the Response to the Response to Comments and added he thought the document Mr. Ruser was talking about was the document the Commission instructed him to provkle to the Commission and staff and when he picked up his staff report on Friday, he was able to access that document. He stated cutting through the fiscal Impact, the project doesn't make a tremendous profit to the ~~ity, but certainly ties In a orderly comprehensive circulation system, parallel to the Riverside ,Freeway. Ho stated a lot of experts have talked today, on both sides, and that he tried to look at it as if he wasn't not emotionally involved, and that he heard a lot of experts on both skies talking about tl~e same Issues and one interesting point was that maybe Coal Canyon was the best corridor, but there was a second best corridor, or an alternative; and that the altemative has been developed, and that the CRMPP process has been served with tho Interchange between the parties. He stated Mr. O'Malley has spent hundreds of hours in the field dealing with Dr. Beier, Mr.Loe, Ms. Sponger, etc. and they have come up wfth solutions and they seem almost directly tied to the outlet on the north side of the freeway and they have property owners who are stepping forward and wanting to work on a joint project to make this happen. He stated they are hearing from the other side that it is Coal Canyon or nothing. He stated there are two alternatives, sornewhat redundant, and a commitment from everybody to pursue and fund the alternatives and they see no reason why they could not move forward wfth this process today; and that they think 6f it is delayed another month or week, that they would come back with the same positions, relath~e to the two parties. He stated he has for the record a copy of a report that talks about a24 million of fees, either for traffic, library, police protection, Eastern Transportation Corridor, which are public oriented facilities and benefits which are funded by a project such as this. Mr. Mohler referred to the purchase of the property and stated h Is knowledge that Caitrans does not have enough money to fund the freeway improvements right now; that they have a very strong 1/21/92 . ?. 1 .:. r.,r~ ~yt~ ~~ , ~~ IUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 ,. ~• ~.< ";~~ PAGE N0.21 ~~af ~` relaUonshtp wfth State Fish and Game because of the acqulsffion of the Tecate Cypress grove, but h`e.has never heard an offer far the northam portion of the canyon. He stated ff there was a viable ~'pii~chase, could K not occur post approval; and added there is nothing that would prohibit that by ,..,, x moving forward with this project and completing the planning ;process which they have been ~~~~ irnolved with for several years. ~`'._~ ~'' 'THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~. - h C i 1 has hea~ d ftom a lot of biologists and the Hon .~. ~' . t~ ~~.,. Commissioner Henninger stated t e omm ss on Company said they had an expert In this field and he would Ilke to hear an alternate view on the viability of the Mindeman access. Art Homrighausen, LSA, Biologist, stated he worked on the analysis of the biological issues on the Mountain Park and Cypress Canyon E!Rs. He stated the findings of the Cypress Canyon EIR are that the project would st{ ; have a slgnfficant Impact to wlldlffe movement and that the Mindeman alternative is proposed as a mitigation measure, but that the EIR as >t stands now was written such that h does not completely mitigate that Impact. He added their view Is not too different from Dr. Baler's and that is that the development would cause the loss of that habftat, but that the Mindeman culvert altemative does represent some chance that mountain Ilons can still get through to the Chino Hills, and added the chance is certainly less than K is through the Coal Canyon, but h is still Z chance and he would view that as the minimum feasible alternative wfth tho development as proposed. Commissioner Bristol stated the Commission has heard that there have tracks In the other culvert and asked ff tracks have been found at all in the Mindeman culvert, or at any place around tkiere. It was noted the Mindeman culvert is closed at the piasent time. Mr. O'Malley stated the Mindeman crossing is a bit more dffflcult to gain access to because of the fence but that the f3 Canyon culvert is accessible; and that ft has vegetation at both ends, but the bottom of these culverts are concrete. Commissioner Bristol asked ff there Is evidsnc:e of the m~untaln lion tracks at that culvert. Both Mr. O'Malley s^d Mr. Mohler responded they were not aware of any evidence. Commissioner Bristol referred to the barbed wire fencing on both sides of the Green River culverts and asked why the barbed wire went four feet vertical, noting that It Is usually horfzonal. He explained he was referring to the fence at the entrance to the Green River Golf Course and it was his thought that ff a mountain Ilon got over the 9t Freew&y and couldn't get through the culvert because it has gates, he wondered ff it could get through the fencing ff those rectangularly-shaped barbed wire sections were not there. He explained his question is whether we are giving the mountain Ifon an option. Mr. O'Malley stated the B Canyon culvert doesn't have any restrictions Ifke that and it is certainly the best aitemative and is actually a much better culvert for crossing the freeway than the Coal Canyon culvert and the biggest problem Is getting to that culvert because of the topography, etc. He stated it is an excellent crossing opportunity, however. 1/21/92 ~,`r ` • • ' V ` - .. . ~ :, TES, ANAHF~IN CITY PUWNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 ~~ PAGE N0.22 ~~ __ ~'~ blr Mo4.er presented a photograph o- the Mlndeman culvert. Me stated that is one of two ~;~:~., P~cematNes they are suggesting and It is more of a manmade structure. ~ '~<~:. ~, commissioner Bristd state his question is why the rest€naulariy-shaped sections of barbed wire in -; r fence are there and it appears to him t;`~st those add141or~d bs~~lers In that fence were not to ~ keep something from going In that dlrectlon~ but to kecip things from coming across. He stated fir" possibly the Ilons wanted to use this crosslnQ god took the only option which was crossing the _ ~ ~ freeway. Mr. Mohler stated ane of the reasons some of that barbed wire trap was put in around the Mlndeman crossing was because hunters were coming from across tl7e freeway and trespassing onto the property, so h was deliberately meant to stop passage. He stated ft could be unplugged. He added people were going back there and illegally hunting. y~~~ fxeyng P ': t S, i Commissioner Bristol stated it appears that man is doing exactly what they are trying to prevent. He stated he is trying to add credence to the possibility that the Coal Canyon culvert and this section makes a lot of sense and he thought the mountain Ilona have tried to use this and man has prevented them from doing that. Mr. O'Malley stated ff the cougars were going from Chino Hills to Coal Canyon or the Santa Ana Mountains, k is probably more likely that they would try to cross at the B Canyon or Mindeman culverts. Commissioner Zernel asked ff there is anything the developer c~.n do such as vegetation, watering holes, etc. to entice the Ilons towards the Nindeman culvert. Mr. Mohler stated those things would certainly Improve the chances. Chalrnian Hellyer stated ':o Dr. Beier that he has raised his awareness about the cougars and that he appreciated that; ancf that ft is interevting to read what he hss offered in all of these documents. Concerning the culvert in Coal Cam,~on, he stated he respects Dr. Baler as the local expert on the cougars and asked ff they are preconditioned by habit, and ff they get used to a crossing, would they seek that one out. Dr. Beier stated in some cases they do; that along Ortega Hlghvw'y they cross in many dffferent places but the freeway is a big obstruction and n is known from their tracks that they are using those culverts very consistently and he did no: know ff h is because they are conditioned or ff that is the only option they perceNe. Chairman Hellyer stated he has observed a bobcat at they golf course In Anaheim Hills and that he is assuming that the bobcat had gotten there from Chino Hills and explained he understood that the cubs are borne in Chino Hills and the female cats do not come over to the south side. Or. Baler clarffied that the~~ are only a couple of females on the north side and there are about '15 or 20 females on the south side, and the bulk of the cougar population Is on the south skle of the fteeway. .~~ar,~i .. ! \. 1/21/92 t ~~ ~. ~.. J~,S. _ _ • TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 b f ~~ (~ PAGE N0.23 ~,f -- ~ ` Chairman Hellyer stated he wtderstood that the males and females do not inhabR the same area ,.~c:~, and that the males need to have the ability to gu over and service the females in Chino Htlls. ~k, ' Dr. Baler responded that the cougars home ranges overlap; that a male's home range typically is 'over four tri sbt females. He stated there is only one adult male who visits the Chino Hills now and 3 ~r , half of hts home range Is on the north side of the fteeway and half is on the south skfe and he Is s ,~:~ the-only male who breeds the females on the north side. He stated ff there is no crossing there, ,~"2:"`' there will be two or three females on the north skJe and maybe the male will be on the north skf6 ~`~`-` an the day that access Is sealed, but n Is just a matter of time. He stater! ff this passage is closed, - .'- his virtually certain that cougars will become extinct in the Chino Hills. t ~, Chairman Heltysr stated he is concerned because right now the Saba property has commercial ,; entitlements lh place in Yorba Ueda and that will virtually close that conldor, regardless of what is '"~ `. ~ done here today. He stated the Commission would be remiss, knowing about those entitlement, ff ~" , ;' they dki not try to provide ether ways for the cougars to get back and forth. He stated h~~ has to look at that as a dead end. .<<~ Dr. Beier stated the existing crv~dition of the Saba property right now is open spt~ce; that the _¢° - ~ entitlement now is for a particular configuration and if they want to build something different, they ='''°` do not have entitlement for that, but they do have a commercial use designation. He stated he dkJ not consider it a dead end at all, and thought there are a lot of options and thus - might want to build a different project, and there might be a project they could build that would rot Impact the corridor. He noted the project currently approved would impact the corridor, but they do not know ff that would be built, and pointed out in ten years, there has been no acilon. Chairman Heilyer asked ff there Is a way to convert the way of thinking of the male cougar who goes back and forth to use the B Canyon access, which appears to be safer and there is less hazard to the cougar because of traffic. Dr. Beier stated he did not think there is vehicle hazard at either crossing right now. He stttted there is virtually no use of that interchange at Coal Canyon at night and added he was not aware of the biking events mentioned which occur several times a year. He added there is minimal vehicle Hazard right now at night at the Coal Canyon culvert. He stated, furthermore, they do not have to cross those paved roads to use the culverte. Commissioner Masse asked ff anything was presented ±oday that would be acceptable. Dr. Beier stated certainly the alternatives analyzed which he liked did not return a net gain to the City. He added he thought there could be alternatives which have not been examined yet and right now they are at the point where he hoped they would be when the draft EIR was issued in March, and now they are flnaily getting the alternatives he expected to see in the draft EIR. He stated he thought to make this fly, that obviously some commercial space is needed and it was only in this fiscal analysts which just came out that he learned the City loses money on every housing unit bu(It and what really brings in the money for the City is the commercial space. Ha added that is why he thought the CRMPP process is important and when Mr. Mohler said they had done an informal CRMPP, that is not really true, and he explained that he was dealing with six people with no power 1/25/92 a sf'~'SR,~'; . 7 'i +~` iT r _- - ~ ~ ~ • f,: i~' MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 `z,, PAGE N0.24 t~=`.'" t~, and no money. He stated the Flsh and Wildlife Service, State Parks, City of Yorba Unda, Mr. Saba, '~;~ ; , etc. need to be at the table ~o negotiate. L,,,_ ~,- >; '"` Dr. Baler stated again he thought they have not examined very many altematives and there are people who could come up with `+etter alternatives. .J{.., Commissioner Zemel stated this has been going on for a long time and he thought Dr. Beier has . had time to think about it and asked what he thought were acceptable altematfves. ~~~ ~: ,'`~i , ' Dr. Beier stated they still want to preserve Coal Canyon as the wtldlffe corridor, but thought they ~' ~' could examine some altematives which might include some commercial space so that there is a net gain for the City. He stated his appreciation of how the finances work for the City came Friday is-;; ; , when he reviewed the feasibility report. Commissioner Bouas stated the mountain 11ons have range areas and asked ff they cross each _ Y , ~. other's areas. Dr. Beier stat~:,d the female ranges do overlap but breeding males tend to exclude other breeding males from their territory. Commissioner Bouas stated ff this crossing is in one male's range, then other males would not use ft. Dr. Beier stated the males have home ranges of 150 to 200 square miles, and they do attempt to exclude other males, but in an area that big, they do not do a very good'ob and they hav~a some tolerance for subordinate males. Commissioner Bouas ~~tated h does not seem there is really very much of a chance that any more than that one maps will ever go over to Chino Hills. Dr. Beier stated they have tracks of a female using the culvert as well, and the male is not Just sitting there by the culvert stopping others from using K. He stated they have every reason to believe that when this male dies, this corridor would work if the habitat is left in tact, and explained the Ilon lives to be about 10 to 12 years old; and noted this Ilon found this area on his own, finding his own way from Camp Pendleton. Commissioner Bouas asked ff there era any other mountain areas adjacent to the Chino Hills area. Dr. Beier responded on the north sloe, there are the cftles of Pomona and Ontario and that cuts h off from the San Bernardino Mountains. Commissioner Masse stated in the documentation he thought he read that Dr. Beier had said a wildlife corridor is not a narrow strip of land. Dr. Baler stated K is hard to say what is too narrow and they do not know how narrow they could make ft for the animals to use it, and that h depends on topography and vegetation. He referred to the Arroyo Trabuco in Southern Orange County which is about 5 miles long and about 1 /4 mile wide and it still is used by mountain Ilons. He stated the only way to get that answer is to examine enough places which animals use and don't use and thought that is probably a decade away. 1/21/92 a k ~~. P~iGE N0.25 '% Chairman Hellyer asked how realistic it is to think about transporting a male over to the Chino Hills ~;~^~'area;ff they were to loam that the females were not receiving visitations from the male. Dr. Beier ' stated he thought in general the Department of Fish and Game is reluctant to move animals around, especially a mountain Ilon which would not be familiar wfth an area. He explained their s. policy is that ff an animal wanders into an urban area, they mark it and take ft back into the hills .,_ ~*4~ . ' .and ff it wanders in again, they shoot it. ts., He stated for Oabilfty masons, the Fish and Game Department would be reluctant to move an "r''!'' animal Into an unfamiliar area. ~~ Chairman Hellyer stated Mountain Park already has `heir entitlements in place and asked about the ~`~ :.` risk to those residents in Mountain Park ff we maintain the corridor where h is now . ~;~~. r Dr. Beier responded the risk is extremely low. He stated he has done a compilation of all cougar ~,o~;;; attacks on humans over the last century (n the United States and Canada and his count was 53 ~~ ';.; : and even allowing for some slack, he was sure there were fewer than 70 attacks by cougars on humans in 100 years In North America. Chairman Hellyer stated they consider the liability to be Pow in this instance, but ff they needed to " transport a cougar to prevent extinction, they would nit do h because of the liability Issue. Dr. Beier stated that is different than the natural risk because h puts the animal In an unfamiliar habftat and animals can behave differently and that the Department of Fish and Game is reluctant to do it and added that is speculative because no one has documEnted tt, but that he would still say that K would be a very slight risk. Chairman Hellyer explained the Commission would recess at this time so they can take a look at the new handouts receNed today and rocerivene at 12:30 p.m. RECESS: 11:55 A.M. RECONVENED: 12:30 P.M. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Ruser ff he was aware of the serious problem in the City of Anaheim with people doubling up wfth housing which has created serious problems in the central part of the city, and asked what the Sierra Club's view is on accommodation of the population growth which is occurring. Mr. Ruser responded those comments would have to be addressed to Sherman Lewis, ChaU of the Calffomia Chapter, in order to find out the views on housing, densities and urban affairs. Mr. Ruser stated his view, as an individual, is that there is an ongoing need for housing in Southern California; however, in the past the Sierra Club felt areas which are blighted should be revitalized and rebuilt, but in general, the Sierra Club does not support moving into new, wildlffe habitat areas. He stated they do support pods of revitalized areas with open space surrounding those pods and they also support rapid transit systems between those pods of more intensive development areas. 1/21/92 t j x. . ~ V. ~_ ~l ~t ~, -^~N s '^•. ~~~. ;._ . UTE3. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUO.RY 21, 1992 ~~y PAGE N0.26 r :' - w~ ~~~ Commissioner Henninger stated he has read the Sierra Club poky before and he agreed wfth Mr. ,,,._„ Ruser's~concepi of their views. fy~°~ ~` Mr. Ruser stated there was a one page document drafted in the early f!0's which essentially says .:: '.,. that the Sierra Club supports revitalization of blighted areas and rebuilding them wfth plenty of open space so that habftable living conditions can be provided for the occupants of those areas ' and with mass transit systems such as monorails, etc. interconnecting those areas so that there would be less air pollution. }?>,1~. ~x," ~~~;,,. LY=='~.. Commissioner Henninger stated the concept of increasing the population in the central areas is the general policy. He explained for quite awhile that was a policy in the City of Anaheim and there was quite a boom in apartment construction and many many of the existing neighborhoods that were affected by that process of densfflcaton of the existing interior of the City really strongly ,objected to that policy; and that the neighborhoods' policy was to leave those neighborhoods alone and strengthen them by not impacting them by higher density and that really leaves the City IooFing at these areas directly adjacent to existing development as pieces where we can handle our housing needs. Mr. Buser stated 200 or 400 parcels have been downzoned by the City of Anaheim in the central part of the City, and he thought those rezonings were initiated by Y ~a Planning Commission and asked ff one of the reasons for that was to establish more industrial areas in the central city. Commissioner Henninger responded the reason for those rezonings was that the citizens of Anaheim and the residents of those areas felt what was best for them was to preserve their living environment and not to have h impacted by higher density Infill development. He stated ff those citizens were here today, they would be directly opposed to the policies being suggested by Mr. Ruser to accommodate the Increased population in Calffornfa. Mr. Ruser stated he has a strong suspicion that another reason for the downzoning which was initiated by this Anaheim Planning Commission was that there was too heavy an Impact, either anticipated or already In place, on the local schod system wfth tao many students. Commissioner Messe stated the reason for the downzonings was almost purely neighborhood preservation. Mr. Buser stated as an individual he sees that as a rather selfish attitude. Commissioner Feouas stated she did not think the residents requests were selfish at all because they had owned their properties and lived in those neighborhoods for many many years. She added the increase in population was creating more crime, etc. and something had to be done about it. Mr. Buser stated it comes back to the first question of what to do about doubled-up housing and added he thought the housing regulations should La enforced and stated they can be enforced because h has been done in Santa Ana. He explained across the street from where he Ih-es, about a year or two after he moved there, suddenly there were people Ih-fng In a garage adjacent to a residence and that he complained about that and it was handled in a very tactful manner, and 1/21/92 ~ ~_-. 'r Z MUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 PAGE N0.27 emu:: ,~~ since his complalM, those resklents are not there anymore. ~~. ,; y , "": Commissioner Henninger asked ff maybe those people are INing out on the street somewhere now. Commissioner Bouas stated Mr. Buser had the attftude that he dkf not want them next to hirn and R" Mr. Buser responded that he dkl have that attftude and added he felt as an individual that attitude ` ,~~ is a selfish one. ~~.~ } ; ~~ ~ Chairman Hellyer asked ff Mr. Buser recognizes the imbalance of jobs and housing in this area. ::~~~_ ~` Mr. Buser stated he does recognize that imbalance; that there is always imbalances in society and ~'` his actually imbalance in society that causes society to work and causes.an economy to move. 4 Chairman Hell er asked ff Mr. Buser rec nizas the traffic roblem on the 91 Freewa in the '~~ ., Y o9 P Y morning and evening and whether he thought the people are driving on that freeway because they - had to move out there in order to get housing and work here in a jobs-rich region. Mr. Buser stated k is obvious the largest number of people are coming to jobs in Los Angeles County and Orange County from their homes in Riverside County and San Bem~rdino County. Chairman Hellyer stated Mr. Buser has represented his position very well, but that the Commission has to rule on what is in the greater interest of all concerned and has to look at it environmentally because of traffic and air pollution and what Is needed horc~ to mitigate those problems and one way is to Increase housing in a jobs-rich region. Commissioner Zemel stated In 1989 there were some 50,000 babies borne and another 50,000 in 1990 in Orange County and every two years this County is growing by the rate of a city the s(ze of Tustin and asked where the Sierra Club or Mr. Buser as an individual feel those people are going to live. Mr. Buser stated he thought they would find a place to live wherever they can. He added as a Sierra Club member, there is a revitalization of the population committee here in Orange County and also a stronger push developing and, in fact, is a priority of the Sierra Club, that population needs to be kept In check, kept to the present number, ff possible, and a possible reduction in the future. He stated the Population Committee is led by the Conservation Committee which is also led by the Conservation Chair of the Angeles Chapter, Russell Ernst, and he may be contacted ccnceming the revitalized efforts of the Angeles Chapter to make the general public aware that the population needs to be curbed in order that our quality of iffe can be maintained. ~ , Commissioner Zemel stated the Planning Commission can't really do anything about curbing population and asked ff Mr. Buser would say that the Commission has a duty to protect and provkJe adequate housing and living opportunfties for these children who are here already. Mr. Buser stated the Planning Commission does have a number of things to consider, other than just wildlffe preservation Issues. Commissioner Henninger referred to the mandatory population controls. Mr. Buser stated it is 1/21/92 t ~ r i ` •. ITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 ~~ '~ ~~ ;s ~; PAGE N0.28 itlvisory,. only and not mandatory and the Sierra Club intent is to let the people know that we have population problem which is seemingly getting worse, and famtly planning Is advocated as the Host immediate way to keep this problem at least reasonably under control wfthout initiating a iolioe state. `~'' Commissioner Henninger asked the current proposal for mftigating the mountain Ilon corridor. . • „? `; ,,.. . ~`~. r Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Ruler a~out a couple of propositions he had mentioned which might make funds available to acquire this property. Mr Buser responded Proposition No. 117 is the Mor!ntain Lion Initiative and the main thrust of that proposftion is to provide funding, but first it will declare the mountain Ilona 'non-game' species. ~~ ` Commissioner Messe asked whether Mr. Buser would continue to work towards having public -, agencies purchase this land to the event this proposal is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Buser stated he would continue to try to persuade polfticians through the Input from their constituents to make available public funding to acquire this area. He stated h Is up to the various governing bodies and various elected officials and what they make available and k has not been ~;.~-~ :~ determined at this thee. Commissioner Messe stated he wanted to point out that H the Commission approved this project today, they have every opportunity to use those propositions to acquire the property. ~y yr,~,, ~'r:: Mr. Buser stated they try to get constituents of the elected officials and various agencies to send letters asking that funding be made available to acquire this property. Responding to Commission Peraza, Frank Remkiewicz, Director of Planning, Research and Information Services for the Orange Unffied School District, stated they do have a signed agreement with the developer and they are reasonably comfortable with h, but that they have three new school board members and due to the holidays, etc., they have not had time to bring them up to date on ail this information. He stated they anticipate that it will be approved on February 13, 1992, at their regularly scheduled board meeting. Linda Johnson responded to Commissioner Henninger that the latest wording of Mitigation Measure No. 3-12 is found on Page 88 of Volume II Response to Comments document which the Commission received on Friday. She stated the mitigation measure as currently worded requires that prior to the approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map or grading plan, that the applicant/developer demonstrate to the Planning Department that the property owner has agreed to bond for an amount equivalent to fair share participation In any program adopted to enhance the Mindeman culvert for wildlife movement; and if the program Is not established within one year of the date of the first map approval, the bonded amount would then be contributed by the property owner/developer to a similar program within the Santa Ana Mountains or Chino Hills area at the discretion of the Planning Commission. She stated the mitigation measure would be further strengthened to also Indicate the enhancement of B Canyon and to reference the wildlife corridor guidelines presented by the applicant; and also change it to read that the amount shall be bonded for prior to the approval of the first tentatve tract or parcel map, rather than Just that the developer has agreed to bond. 1/21/92 ~:. ~~' • UTES ANAH ~s ,n~~. OM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.29 ~:,-_ ~,,,,_ ,,., °' Commissioner Henninger stated there are several things that bother him about this language and that, he thought the language proposed by the applicant seemed like a better deal; that he felt that ~•, ~ ~~ altemat(ve Is workable and ff this project is approved, he would want to be sure that the corridor • . ,•; ' ' ~ became a reality and he did not think the language proposed by staff provides ff. He stated he ~ ;-~~ would Ilke for this condition to say that this developer would purchase the easements or right of ,r-~. ~,,;,~ way needed for the wildlffe corridor and that the developer does the enhancement and pays all the 4" '` costs and can then seek reimbursement, rather than them Just being one of the participants and then ff there are no other participants, the program just disappears. ,0l,'-: .,v s., j~ ;;'sr Mike Mohler stated they have some problems with that proposal; that ft ignores the cumulative Impacts that pushed ff onto their property and ultimately Into these solutions to begin with. He stated having to purchase the easements puts them in a deficient posfflon and potentially In a posfflon to be at ransom by the adjacent property owner, although they have indicated that would be a cooperative effort. He stated they have tried to say that they know this is going to cost some money and they want to stand behind that commitment and ff the solution is not there, they want to provide the money anyway. He suggested the following language: "That prior to the approval of the first tract map for building purposes or mass grading plan, whichever occurs first, a Mountain Uon Corridor Plan for the Mindeman or Canyon culvert shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. Said Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ff adopted, the applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in any program adopted to enhance the Mindeman and B Canyon culvert for wildlife movement.' He added this ties ff to the tract map and grading plan and they could not go further until they came back before the Planning Commission with solutions. Commissioner Henninger stated that language does not satisfy his concerns. He added it fs nice to have a plan, but the plan is not the end, and the end k: a corridor and the corridor would have to be in place prior to the start of grading. He stated, however, ff the applicant wants to waft for a fair share participant to develop, that is an option. Mr. Mohler stated the Commission approved a development on the property next dcnr >nrt;h no requirement to build Santa Ana Canyon Road onto this property and that has become ~..ils developer's obligation. He stated he did not think they are proposing anything different than "business as usual" except it becomes an unusual situation for them by having to solve the entire problem. Chairman Hellyer stated the testimony the Commission has heard is that the corridor is on this property. Mr.Mohler responded the corridor is also on the B Canyon and Mindeman properties and h is their opinion that they are talking about enhancement and not the corridor itself; that they will build no freeway undercrossing because ft exists and that they will grade no canyons because they exist, and added they might upgrade vegetation. He stated he can not Imagine being put Into a position of having to go off she and purchase property. Commissioner Henninger stated developers have to go off site to purchase property every day and added he thought the developer was aware that ff they made a good effort to do that over a period 1/21/92 ~~` r~~' ,~,~r .~-^.. . } ~4 0; dime, that the City could be asked to use their condemnation power. He responded to Mr. fdoh{er that the City can condemn property anywhere, as long as k is for a legftimate public -°<:~"!. `purpose. ~,: Commissioner Meese stated without these guarantees, there is no wildlffe corridor. .. ~'~!: ,~~'''' ' Mr. Mahler asked fora 10-minute recess. ~. ~`, RECESS: 1:05 d~r~., ,, RECONVENE: 1:10 sF~H ~ ~, ¢ ~. Commissioner Henninger stated he wanted to be sure It is understood that he has no problem with the Idea of reimbursement and Just wants to make sure that the corrkfor gets done and ff that means this developer has to provkle the funding up front, then he has no problem with them being ~` ; reimbursed. ~, ~ `Regarding his oarlfer comment about condemnation, he explained that is his belief and asked the z ~ ~ City Attorney ff he was correct in thinking the City could condemn property outside the Clty boundaries aF long as h has a legitimate purpose for the City. Bruce Young stated there is no need for condemnation; that they are offering the corrklor; and that their only concern is that the Commission at least not impose pre-existing standards developed by one biologist. HP stated the land is within the jurisdiction of RNerskfe County, and they would like to at least develop a plan collectNely with the Anaheim City staff and RNerside County staff as to what the corridor should look Tike. He stated they don't inftiaily contest or even object, but they weed just like to have at least a discussion process to Include RNerside County. Mr. Young stated another critical point is to try and develop that access so they are not landlocked and also noted that is part of the way they can get to a wildlife corrklor. He stated they do not envision a need to condemn the property and they believe h is a viable corridor and something they want to develop. He stated before these Commission hearings started, and Just in 4he thoughts and discussions of their property, not mandated by RNerside county where the land exists; they believe they have really been firm about the Idea of providing or taking advantage of the corridor that exits. He stated he respects Commissioner i-lenninger's concerns, but they think they can be cooperative and meet whatever requirements are there; and that they want the Hon property development to proceed and they will cooperate in every way possible and they have been cooperative and he was sure they can finalize alt the discussions amongst themselves quickly so this can move forward. Chairman Hellyer stated ft appears they have something Hon wants and Hon has something they want and they should be able to work without the benefit of RNerside County or Orange County bureaucrats. Mr. Young stated their only concerns are that once they reach the agreement, they do need the blessing of certainly RNerside County for establishing the permanent easement and some kind of maintenance for that wildlffe corridor. He stated it Is not enough to Just preserve k and they have ~~ ~,... _ 1/21/92 ~ ~. r% ~, rES, ANAHEIM CITY PIJ4NNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.31 ~~.~.. ~"~~ `to make cure kind of entNJements are given so ttiat ft remains, a thoroughfare, so they need the r;~t cooperation of Riverske County, and they also rued to be able to develop that road in concert '' ~'- witFi he City of Anaheim staff so that k is compg~ ibis with the Circulation Plan. He added he ~ =thought, amongst the companies, that they have .a conceptual agreement and agree and both are ~~"=: .going to cooperate, but they do need the coopen dton of both the City of Anaheim and County of ~~`~ Riverside, or City of Corona ff they decide to ann rx there, just to bless what they do. ~. ;_` `' Commissioner Meese stated he does not know ai ~ything about this proposed road, whether ft Is Iimfted access Just through the property or ff ft is going to go on through to Corona, and that he certainly did not want to see a regional system of roads going through everybody's back yard. Mr. Young responded nefther do they, and orated they have since met with the City of Corona and from a staff level, they now agr>~e with them that ft is not feasible, thrt the grades are not proper, and they dart envision a regional system but see this as a secondary road that would tie into the existing network. He stated they do have to sit down with their traffic engineer to make sure that ft would not do anything to overtax the connection at Coal Canyon. He added they do not want their property to be the thoroughfare efther; that the grades are such they don't want people going through there and they want that as a neighbofiood road, so ft would be some kind of secondary neighborhood access only. Chairman Hellyer stated they have the geological concerns also which were ldentftled in the staff report. Mr. Young stated based on the information they have from their geologist and seismologist, they think those are unfounded and they think they have and can deal with them; that they have been working with Riverside and Corona where the land efts, and they feel comfortable that they can develop a secondary road that wilt meet all the seismic and geological constraints. Chairman Hellyer asked how we can be assured that ft is not going to be a true roadway connector from Hon's development all the way to Corona. Commissioner Henninger stated that road and the Mindeman property are really not on the agenda today. Chairman Hellyer stated that is an environmental concern, however, because H something like that is done, ft is going to Increase the traffic by way of freeway avoidance efforts, and added he would Tike to have that addressed. Commissioner Meese added they are using that road as a chip for the wildlife corridor. Mike Mohler stated any road conne~'lon would require a supplement, to tha EIR and the Planning Commission would have the right of judgement over such connection and he thought the assurance stays within the C'y's power; that they have already expressed their desire to have ft remain just a local project to ~roJect roadway, and ff ft became any greater than that, they would be jeopardizing their own app. `val and would probably have to go right back through the system. Bruce Young stated in addftion, this property is in Orange and certainly as the Hon property moves 1/21/42 ~; ~J!•`-- ~ k 6 S ~:. ~~ •' •, fF"^Y .pr,..v IUTES, ANAHEIM CfiY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 irward,,they can envision the day when they would be back before this Commission asking that is`be'annexed and certainly within that decision power, the Commission or City has approval of ny roads that go through their property and connect with any ether county. He added they are iindful of that and added just on the planning o: the project, it will not be feasible, again because f the distance and grades to have that road go that far. He stated he did not know the City's "~' . policy about having ft possibly be a local gated road to restrict the traffic, but they have talked ua ~,,~~ :about that and would leave it to the staff and Commission, when and ff they come back. 3~ ~~~ :~ . Mike Mohler stated in light of all that has gone before them end in light of Commissioner ~~ Henninger's comments about wanting to be satisflcd and wanting to see a corrklor in place, he a ;~' ~: would offer she following wording for that mitigation measure: t~ .' r~~,ay ?hat rior to the a ~, : p pproval of the first tentative tract or parcel map for building purposes, or t,;~;, mass grading plan, whichever occurs first„ a Mountain Uon Corridor, or a Wildlife Corridor v plan for the Mindeman and 'B" Canyon cuiw.3rt shaall be prepared by a qualified biologist. ~~+ - This plan shall be reviewed by the Plannirra Commission. Further, such wildlife corrkors bra `` shall be in place to the satisfaction of the City Planning Commission prior to the approval of ~ the first tentative tract map or Issuance of mass gradi~: permit. (Chairman Heilyer stated the first part could be eliminated and Commissioner Meese stated the Commission would have to see the plan.l And that the costs of any such corridors shall be borne by the applicant.' Commissioner Henninger stated he does not mind the concept of reimbursement and thought they deserve reimbursement, and that he fs asking them to be banker, ff it happens at the time they want to go forward, and the ocher players are not ready and willing to c~mtribute. Mr. fAohle? responded that fs understood and added since they are under the City of Anaheim's control, they would be the banker, and they agree to that point, and obviously would be seeking reimbursement, but that would be simply a matter between the landowners and they would not associate the Cfty in that problem. Mr. Mohler stated ff that meets with the Comrnissfon's satisfaction, they would certainly accept that condition, or an amended mitigation aneasure with respect to that issue. Gordon Ruser sorted he wanted to state again that the Sierra Club supports the acquisition of the entire property and the question posed to him earlier perhaps could be construed ns saying that they somehow support a `yes' vote on the proposed development, and he wanted to state that they do not think it is a good Idea because of the fiscal constraints. Commissioners Henninger and Heilyer stated they did not think there was any misunderstanding about the Sierra Club's position, and Commissic.~er Henninger clarified he understood the Sierra Club would Tike the Commission to vote "no" on this project. Mr. Ruser responded that is flair request, and added also they did not want to see the property annexed to the City; and that also they have to realize that there are some realistic constraints on what funds may be available for purchase. 1 /21 /~J2 r i ``~~' ~yac1 ,~ ~ k -. ~~ Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission heard that before. 4~ _. ~' Commissioner Masse stated there is one mitigation measure (No. 3-16, page 574) which he would .~ Ilke to see modffied to read that the CC~Rs also indicate not only those plants that should not be ~.F:~ , :thrown away in natural open space, such as cuttings, etc., but that there are certain plants that h_~ should not be planted at all in the development and he did not think that was covered, and clartfled '~„~` ' he is lookin at the Summa of Im cts and Miti ations, Attachment C. He staled it covers the ~M t:;. 9 ry Pa 9 '~ ~ `'' point in the CC&Rs that the ueighborhoad should not be throwing cuttings away, but there are ,,,; , ;.. certain plants that should not be planted there at all, and he felt ft is a minor point, but should be 4 " covered in the mitigation measures. Commissioner Henninger state) he is r9ally pleased with the way this study of eltematives came out and that ::e is absolutely certain t'rat it is something that had to be done; and that this EIR was ~r originally prepared by the developer's consultant, but the Cummir~cion ~°~ ~Ily/~, exercised tf~elF- its independent review and judgement by requirln~ supplbmental in/ormatlon. `~ Oq~ Commissioner Henninger asked ff the Mountain Lion Corridor Technical Feasibility Study would becorr,~ an addb~dum to the EIR and stated it needs to be understood that the Commission has dons Its Job here and has looked at finis carefully a~ld have exercised a strong Independent Judgment. Linda Johnson stated the document does not become an addendum but does become part of the final EIR. Ron Rothschild, City Manager's Office, responded to Commissiorre~r Messe's question regarding the concern that even without a hotel, the City will at least break even, and stated that he was not privy to what was discussed earlier regarding the fiscal Impacts. Commissioner Afesse stated several members of the public indicated that the fiscal Impact was going to be fairly severe on the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Heilyer asked what the safeguards are with regard to the hotel not being constructed. Mr. Rothschild stated staff has reviewed the fiscal impact analysis and they are satisfied with the way it has been conducted and think it is a fair and reasonable analysis of the impacts there; that it does call for the hotel, and does call at buildout that the Impacts would roughly be neutral, or a slight advantage, as far as the income or revenues to the City beyond the proposed expenses, and that is about $25,000 a year, that it does demand obviously that the hotel be built and that they propose through the Develr~pment Agreement to arrange for some monitoring device, not explicitly defined as yet, that allows staff to review the assumptions as the proJ3ct is being developed to assure that the assumptions used In the fiscal Impact analysis are, in fact, occurring or something better than that is occurring as far as the fiscal Impact to the City fs concerned and would allow ff they are not occurring, to bring a halt to the project and Qo back Into the project and review the Specific Plan and what does get developed, or to develop some financial mechanisms that put more revenue Into the City's coffers. t/21/92 ~ t ; ',.. . ~; ; -~ ," • NOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE N0.34 `` ~ ~ Commissioner Messe stated without the TOT, h® thought there is a large negative wkh this project. ~~~ _ ~~' J Mr. Rothschild responded they looked very carefully at that and originally there were a couple of i'Fy _ motels proposed in the Specific Plar, :";nd staff dki not think that was realistic, given the 'supply and demand' and what they project it to be in the future and that has been downsized. He stated staff looked at what they think nre more reasonable occupancy rates and they think this is a fair analysis right now and obviously ff h doesn't get built, they plan to have safeguards in demanding a different set of fiscal mechanisms be put in place so that the City can get a comparable amount of revenue. Comm~sloner Henninger asked ff the Commission should recommend a Statement of Overriding Considerations ff they recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council. } Linda Johnson stated the staff report of December 9, 1991, previously given to the Planning ,. ~;~~, Commission, included a Statement of Overriding Considerations as an attachment, as well as a Statement of Findings and Facts; that the Statement of Findings and Facts has been updated to ~'"''' " reflect changes to the Mftigation Measures which were noted in the Response to Comments Document, Volume 2; that a copy of that has been provided to the Commission and the changes are indicated by crossed out words and underlined words, but it simply reflects information In the Response to Comment document. Commissioner Messe stated in the documentation, he found that the waste water generation is going to be about 960,000 gallons and the water demand at build out is 3oing to be 750,000 gallons and asked if those should be balanced. h:ntalie Lockman, Principal Civii Engineer, stated she thought there are probably different assumptions being used by the different departments. Linda Johnson stated the Statement of Overriding Conskieretions was included as Attachment D to the December 9, 19^1, staff report. She summarized the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Commissioner Henninger stated he would Tike to expand the riiscusslon regarding 'housing'; that one of the big Issues is the debate of whether we should ba providing housing opportunfties by in- flll and he thought in Anaheim, the experience with in-fill nas shown through the reaction of the various neighborhoods, that that is not a direction the citizens of Anaheim want to go in order to accommodate the population growth; that there is a severe overcrowding problem In many parts of Anaheim and we believe that providing housing such as this project, expands the housing opportunities at all levels in the City. Mike Mohler referred to a letter dated January 16, 1992, to the Planning Director, which included flue points and stated they appreciate staff's concurrence on fcur of the points; however, regarding the 50-foot setback along Santa Ana Canyc,~ and Coal Canyon. Road in their commercial center, that they designed the project prior to the Mountain Park project being reviewed by the Planning Commission and those were the City standards at that time. He addsd the topography at that particular area, getting around one last hill just immediately west of the Coal Canyon Intersection, maws that a very tight area and compliance with this particular setback would upset the ftscai analysis because h would take about 239t~ of their developable commercial acreage out of the ~; ;r - ~,r 1/21/92 ~ i i~ , 3, ~e C3x3%: rES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21,1992 PAGE N0.35 ~r ~~ ;i ,,, >, rfi. ~ `_ ~ ~ ~' Mr. Mohler responded to Chairman Hellyer that they could not reconfigure because with the ' ~ Caltrans data and the additional on ramps, for the wkfening of the onramp and working that culvert '~_ end the ~trc,ro easements, but that they will use their best efforts to continue to work with Ceftrans on the issue, but ff they were to maintain their easements, that is a hardship to the ~""~;t.,,_ . project. He stated they believe one of the reasons staff encouraged the 100-foot setback for ~,t . Mountain Park was the tremendous expanse and in this case, ft is only eight acres. ~; ,.~„~ i+~~; ~~ t~ x~~ r, Commissioner Henninger stated that seems to be a standard within the Specific Plan and is not a mftigatlon in the EIR, so ft should be considered at a later date. Linda Johnson stated the applicant has submitted copies of the commercial building setback exhibfi. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED that after consklering Draft EIR No. 298 for the proposed Cypress Canyon project and reviewing evidence presented, both written and oral, to supplement Draft EIR No. 298, the Planning Commission finds that: A. Draft EIR No. 298 is in compliance with the Calffomia Environmental Quality Act and the State and City CEQA Guidelines; B. The project is consistent with the Intent of the City's General Plan for the site and will be compatible with surrounding Land uses; C. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that one or more findings be made for each significant environmental effect klentified. The Plar+.ning Commission hereby adopts the Findings and Facts set forth in updated Attachment D, Statement of Findings and Facts, Cypress Canyon Specific Plan. Findings relative to the rejection of Alternatives are also included in said Attachment. D. The Planning Commission further determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental Impacts, and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines adopts a Statement of Overriding Conside~~ations. Findings and Facts associated therewith are set forth in updated Attachment D, Overriding Co~isiderations. E. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency Is making the findings required by Section 21081 (a) of the Public Resources Code, the Agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which K has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to mftigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Ciry hereby finds that the mitigation measures plated In updated Attachment C, Summary of Impacts and Mftigations and including revised mtigation meas~ues 3- 12 and 3-16) have been Incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring Program that `: ,:h t ~ ? ~1 '.,is" 1/21/92 It.ai .. i ~~ ~,, r;`-MINUTES, MUiHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE NO.36 ;_,,r:. ~ ,, , meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resourca3s Code. s;' ,~~.= Therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend certification of EIR No. 298 and adoption of the Statement of Overriding Conskierations and Mhigation Monitoring Program, as ~ amended. ,~~_ - ~' Commissioner Henninger stated there was a statement in the record by Dr. Beier that ther& was no real risk to this mountain Ilon population in terms of extinction and that there Is a good and healthy r .;. population within the coastal mountain range. s Or. Paul Beier responded that he had stated we are very close to having an endangered population az~;. _ and that this protect would put h very dose. He stated i. Cypress Canyon is approved, this would ~,~;, be an endangered population. f ~~ , _~ Commissioner Henninger stated one half of this property has already beau sdd for environmental ~~ protection purposes and that he can't help but consider that since quite a bni of this property has '`~"~' been set aside already for that purpose. Chairman Hellyer continued the actions on General Plan Amendment No. 317 and Specific Plan No. 90-3 (Including Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facili4les Plan) until the regularly- scheduled meeting of January 27, 1992, to be the fist Item on the agenda. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ////// Edith L. Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor PC920121.K~ 1/21/92 ,~yr ~.LA &tiYl~J'.~.' .