Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-2007 NAHMINUTES i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING j CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman O'Neal called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:09 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flores led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: O'NEAL, GONZALES, FLORES, MENDOZA,ZANELLI ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Director of Community Development Preisendanz, Planning Manager Weiner, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Public Works Director Seumalo, Associate Planner Carlson, Associate Planner Resendiz, Planning Consultant Miller, and Office Specialist Herrington. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Agenda Items) No requests to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Chairman O'Neal stated that Item Numbers 1, 2 & 3 would be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 1. Minor Design Review of a two story Single-Family Residence located at 365 Avenue 5 (373-192-015). Planning Manager Weiner stated that the applicant Daniel Rodriguez was not present at the meeting but was advised of the meeting. He also stated that Mr. Rodriguez did sign the Draft Acknowledgment of Conditions letter stating that he read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-JULY 3, 2007 MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND - PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-118, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 365 AVENUES 5. 2. Minor Design Review of a Residential Duplex located on Franklin Street (APN: 373-021-006). The owner, Froylan Alfaro was at the meeting in place of the applicant, Hector Zubieta. Mr. Alfaro stated that he read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-119, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX. 3. Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence located at 16150 Stevens Street. Applicant, Jeff Jones, 1408 Goodman Avenue, Redondo Beach, read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Zanelli commended the applicant for taking a responsible developer's approach in installing the sewer systems. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-120, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chairman O'Neal stated that Item No. 6 would become Item Number 4 and Item No. 4 would become Item Number 6. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-21; Variance No. 2007-02; and Commercial Design Review No. 2006-18 fora proposed Lone Star Steakhouse Restaurant located at 18601 Dexter Avenue (APN: 377-080- 077). Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 pm. Agenda Item No.l Page 2 of 49 PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Associate Planner Carlson to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Associate Planner Carlson provided an overview of the project. He stated that staff revised Condition Number 39, Subsection F of the Conditions of Approval and he read the revised Condition to the Commission regarding the trash enclosure. He also informed the Commission that the applicant and the architect were present. The architect, read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval including the revision to Condition Number 39. He thanked staff and said he would answer any questions. Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing at 6:14 pm Planning Commission Comments Commissioner Zanelli said it was a nice looking project. Commissioner Flores stated that he was happy that the project has come to Lake Elsinore. Commissioner Mendoza stated that the proposed project would be a great addition to the City. Vice Chair Gonzales welcomed the applicant to the City. Chairman O'Neal had no comments. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-121, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISITENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP). MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-122, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-21. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY GONZALES, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-123, A RESOLUTION OF THE Agenda Item No.l Page 3 of 49 PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2007-02. MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY ZANELLI, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-124, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2006-18 WITH THE REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 39, SUBSECTION F. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-04 (T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facility). Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 6:17 pm. Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Associate Planner Carlson to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Associate Planner Carlson provided an overview of the project and also distributed to the Commission with correspondence which was provided to staff post the staff report being distributed which reflects members of the community within the area that object to the installation of the T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Staff recommended denial of the proposed project. Applicant, Marc Myers, The Planning Consortium, 627 N. Main Street, Orange, California, representing T-Mobile stated that they looked at various locations to place the cellular tower but those locations were not feasible and chose the Tuscany Hills area because it would optimize coverage and asked the Planning Commission to reconsider staffs recommendation of denial. Chairman O'Neal asked Mr. Myers if he stated that the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) would not allow the installation of the cellular tower on their water tank. Mr. Myers said yes. He also said that they didn't have enough space despite minimizing the type of installation and went just outside of the area which was the Home Owners Association's area. Chairman O'Neal asked Director of Community Development Preisendanz to discuss what EVMWD said regarding installing the cellular tower on the water tank. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that he spoke to Mr. Phil Williams of EVMWD approximately three (3) weeks ago and Mr. Williams stated that EVMWD was agreeable to co-locating on the water tank side and attaching to the water tank but his advice was to make sure that the applicant applied with EVMWD. Agenda Item No.l Page 4 of 49 PAGE5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-JULY 3. 2007 REQUESTS TO SPEAK Wilfrido Reyes, 25 Corte Palazzo in Tuscany Hills, stated that if the communication facility is placed at the proposed location, it could pose a health hazard to the residents in the area. In addition to this, school children wait at a school bus stop where the cell tower would be located and suggested relocating the facility to the water tower. Tracy Fuller, Attorney for Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., 191 Calle Magdalena, Suite 220, Encinitas, California, submitted a "Formal Written Opposition" of the project to the Planning Commission, requesting denial of the project and also requested that the applicant obtain appropriate approval by the Association. Jeanne Woodyard, 34 Del Santello, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, stated that she lives near the proposed project and has concerns about possible health hazards to her children and family due to the installation of the cellular tower. Eike Hoheenadl, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, stated that the school bus stop is approximately (15) feet from the proposed facility location and it could be a health hazard to the children waiting at the bus stop. He also stated that the proposed forty (40) foot pole would be distracting to the beauty of the neighborhood. Joyce Hohendadl, 27 Corte Palazzo, Lake Elsinore, said she reviewed the Final Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the Specific Plan didn't state that cellular towers were permitted within Tuscany Hills. Ms. Hohendadl requested that the Commission deny the project. Gary Tosti, 21 Corte Madera, Lake Elsinore, stated that it would be negligent for the City to allow the facility to be built because of the potential harm of the electromagnetic fields to the residents living near the facility and requested that the tower be placed on the water tank. Tom Franson, 7 Villa Valtilena, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, suggested installing the antennas at the water tank and it wouldn't disrupt the beauty of the neighborhood. Duane Holmes, 53 Bella Donaci, Lake Elsinore, stated that he is a member of the Board of Directors at Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., and said that this project is contrary to the CC&R's and should be reviewed by the Landscape Committee prior to anything being built there. Councilman Daryl Hickman, 19 Corte Madera, Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore, said that he was speaking as a citizen. His concern is the exposure of the radiation to the families and their children who live near the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed facility is near the high school and middle school bus stop. He also stated that all electrical wires in Tuscany Hills are underground and there are no visible antennas within the Association. He also said he went to the location of where Agenda Item No.l Page 5 of 49 PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-JULY 3, 2007 another cellular tower was installed located on Franklin, near 6th Street which was enormous and does not belong in a residential area. Jerry Carlos, 14 Del Torino, Lake Elsinore, wanted to know if the School District office is aware that this facility is being built at their bus stop and did the City advise the School District of this? He also stated that a forty (40) foot tower is very high and thinks that if the applicant were to work with the Water District there might be a better location. Director of Community Development, Preisendanz stated that when a new project gets submitted to the City it gets noticed in the Newspaper, posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and it also get mailed to residents and businesses within a 300 foot radius. It also gets routed to the school district, among other agencies. Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 pm. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Flores thanked the Tuscany Hills residents for their views on the project and stated that based on the application and evidence submitted, he was going to deny the project. He also suggested a continuous review for a possible installation with the EVMWD. Commissioner Mendoza thanked the residents for attending the meeting and said that he doesn't think that any type of commercial tower should be installed in the Tuscany Hills area and should be located by the water tower. Vice Chair Gonzales stated that he viewed the location where the tower would be installed and said that a tower that tall in that area wouldn't be right and said since there has been approval from the Water District, it should be moved to the Water District's location. Commissioner Zanelli said he concurred with his fellow Commissioners and thanked the residents for attending the meeting and expressing their views. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY MENDOZA, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-04 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY). 6. Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) No. 2005-12; a 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land (proposed site) within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. - Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Meeting at 7:06 pm. Minutes taken verbatim Agenda Item No.1 Page 6 of 49 PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal I'll bring the meeting back to order. This takes us to formerly numbered Item Number Four, which is now Number Six. Prior to starting this, I do have a statement to read. I had a disturbing phone call today suggesting that I solicit or accept campaign contributions. For the record, I have solicited no one for money; I have received nothing from anyone, any developer or any other person for campaign purposes. I am not currently running for any public office. I do not have a campaign committee; I do not have a bank account for campaign purposes. In 2003, you all know, or some of you know, I ran for City office; I lost. I hope that clears that up. This is public hearing Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process LEAP number 2005-12, a 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land within the Alberhill Ranch specific plan area. Rolfe -- and we will have a lot of latitude today because we do have a number of speakers that would like to speak and, I caution you, don't make me cut you off, but I will be as liberal as possible. Rolfe. Preisendanz Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and good evening to the members of the Planning Commission. The item before you tonight, as you mentioned, is entitled the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process, or LEAP number 2005-12, fora 9.09 acre commercially zoned parcel of land within the Alberhill Ranch specific plan. I first wanted to thank the commission for the time they spent in reviewing this project and also thank staff for the time they've spent as well. And I want to also thank the applicant, Mr. Hardy Strozier, with The Planning Associates and the owner Castle & Cooke and their team for the time that they have spent. And although staff has not been able to concur with the applicant's analysis and conclusions, I look forward and do appreciate and acknowledge the investment Castle & Cooke have made in the City of Lake Elsinore. With that, we'll begin our presentation. Agenda Item No.l Page 7 of 49 PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 As I mentioned, the project is entitled LEAP number 2005-12. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider and make recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the development footprint depicted in LEAP number 2005-12 is consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conversation Plan, or the MSHCP. As you know, after much debate and testimony from significant stakeholders within the city in January 2004, the City agreed to implement the MSHCP which included specific biology as approved in the MSHCP; the reserve assembly requirements as described in the criteria Cell and compliance with the 75- year permit. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan is a long- term comprehensive plan which focuses on the conversation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project, or the RCIP, which encourages land assembly to support habitat and habitat needs. More importantly, from my understanding from Tom Mullins, was the MSHCP was prepared to facilitate and expedite the construction of both regional and local infrastructure while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Act. In addressing the requirements of the state and federal government, the MSHCP serves as a habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(b) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and is used to allow jurisdictions to authorize the take of plant and wildlife species within the plan area. As such, the wildlife agencies granted under the MSHCP take authorization in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP conservation area. Next slide, please. As I mentioned earlier, the site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan as described by the MSHCP, specifically Cell 3751, and also a portion of Cell 3854 and within Cell Group J, which is located in this area that I wrote and tried to outline for you; that is Cell Group J, which includes 12 individual Cells. For the future -- excuse me. For the purposes of future discussion, it is important to note that Cell Group I, which is located here, these two Cells here, is contiguous to Cell Group J to the west. It is Agenda Item No.l Page 8 of 49 PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 also important to identify both independent Cell 3853, which is here, and Cell Group O, which is right here, to the southeast of Cell Group J. Next slide, please. The first step in the MSHCP review, as staff has determined it, and consistency analysis is to evaluate whether the project contributes to the conservation of criteria established for each individual Cell or Cell Grouping in which the project lies according to the Cell criteria or Cell Group criteria found in the MSHCP. To do this, staff determined what Cell or Cell Group applied to this site. In this case, staff reviewed and considered the Cell -- the criteria for Cell Group J considering the project is located in this yellow area right here, the nine-acre site, and this is Cell Group J, this entire area. The conservation criteria for Cell Group J, and you have to bear with me as I read this criteria within the MSHCP, but I think it's important that I do mention it: Conservation within the Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of proposed core one; conservation within the Cell Group will focus on coastal sage scrub, chaparral grass land, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this-Cell Group will be connected to upland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell number 3853 and 3855 and Cell Group O to the south and to the coastal sage scrub habitat for a proposed conservation in Cell Group L to the East to riparian habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group I to the west and to existing POP lands to the north and west. Conservation within the Cell Group remains from 75 to 85 percent of the Cell Group focusing in the western and northern portions of the Cell Group. Considering this language, it's important to note a few things. One is the contribution to core one; the other is the 75 to 85 percent conservation goal within this Cell Group. The focus on riparian and forested habitat and then the connection to other Cell Groups. Basically, our analysis started with asking whether the proposal contributes to proposed core one. We determined that the proposal from the applicant, which is the 75-foot width, does contribute to proposed core one. Staff then asked -- we asked ourselves whether the proposal contributes to 75 percent to 85 percent Agenda Item No.l Page 9 of 49 PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 conservation in the western and northern portions of the Cell Group. We determined that based on a strict interpretation of the Cell criteria that the northern four Cells and the western four Cells totaling about 66 percent of Cell Group J should be entirely conserved. Staff acknowledges that the MSHCP obviously should be flexible and we should be able to jog the conservation boundary in that area. However, because of the limited resource recognized that it's the Temescal Wash and because we are to focus on riparian scrub and forest and habitat, and because we have to connect to other Cell Groups, we staff looked to the adjacent Cell Groups to determine whether the proposal would allow us to achieve these three points. Considering that the Temescal Wash, which is the riparian area, which is this blue line that runs through the site here, and the criteria for Cell Group J does not explain how the wash should be treated, staff paid particular attention to the criteria for Cell Group I located in these two areas here, because Cell Group I provides instruction on how to treat Temescal Wash. Cell Group I, which is located adjacent to the site, discusses how Temescal Wash should be treated, contributes to assembly of proposed constrained linkage six and requires approximately five percent conservation focusing that -- five percent conservation focusing and the southern portion of the Cell Group. The conservation within this Cell Group reads as follows, bear with me again: "Conservation within the Cell Group will contribute to assembly of proposed constrained linkage six. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on riparian habitat associated with Temescal Wash. Areas conserved within the Cell Group will be connected to the riparian habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group J to the east and in Cell Group H to the west. Conservation within this Cell Group will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group focusing on the southern portion of the Cell Group." It is from this language that staff extrapolated a calculation to reach the conservation goal of approximately 264 feet and that calculation is that we -- the two Cells in Cell Group I, there's a total of 320 acres. Agenda Item No.l Page ] 0 of 49 PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3. 2007 Five percent of the 320-acre Cell Group is 16 acres. Converting the 16 acres to square feet, you have 696,960 square feet. Staff was looking at how to distribute -- determine how the 696,960 feet would be distributed throughout the Cell Group. Since Cell Group I conservation criteria requires that conservation be focused along the Temescal Wash and because Temescal Wash runs along the width of Cell Group I, staff distributed the 696,000 acres or so square feet along the width of Cell Group I, which is 2,644 feet and with the division of the 696,000 square feet divided by 2,640 came up with 264 feet. While the City and the RCA determined that 264 feet was consistent with the MSHCP and was the optimum set aside, staff recognized the importance of commercial development opportunity at the site and concluded with the concurrence of RCA that a lesser set aside of 175 feet is enough to support biologically diverse habitat within the meaning of the MSHCP and that any lesser conservation amount would be inconsistent with the plan. City staff supports the 175 feet set aside as consistent with the MSHCP and believe that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretation of the conservation criteria. As such, staff believes that the development of the 9.09-acre site with a 75-foot width as proposed is not consistent with the MSHCP. Finally, if the Planning Commission rejects staffs recommendation and instead recommends that the City Council find Castle and Cooke's proposal consistent with the MSHCP and if the City Council concurs with that recommendation, the project will move to the MSHCP ad hoc committee prior to final City Council determination. According to section 6.6.1(e)(4) when the City and the RCA disagree on a project's compliance with the MSHCP, the matter shall be submitted to an ad hoc committee made up of elected officials representing the RCA and the City. In the event the ad hoc committee is unable to make findings of consistency with the MSHCP, RCA staff must notify the wildlife agencies of such action by the City within 14 days. At that Agenda Item No.l Page 11 of 49 PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 juncture, the wildlife agency may then consider the suspension of all or portions of the incidental take permit. That would conclude my presentation. I would like to defer to our City Attorney for further explanation of the process of this project. Chairman O'Neal Before you do that, before you do any deference, I was remiss in not opening the public hearing so please open the public hearing. Deputy City Attorney Santana Okay. I just want to clarify a little bit here tonight what the nature of the Planning Commission's action is. We have a couple of avenues that the Planning Commission can take and just thought it would be beneficial to outline those avenues before we get into the substance so that the substance can help you sort of process through. So the first option is for the Planning Commission to approve staffs recommendation. The second option is for the Planning Commission to reject staffs recommendation and that second option can be made up of two sub sets: one to either recommend that the City Council find Castle and Cooke's proposal consistent with the MSHCP or; B, to recommend that the City Council find some other number, aside from the 75 feet or the 175 feet, is consistent with the MSHCP. Now, if you take either of the approaches that are set forth as sub sets in the second option, if you reject staffs recommendation, just wanted to let you know that you will have to make findings.- You will have to articulate reasons why, on the record, your recommendation is being made and why that recommendation is consistent with the MSHCP. So I just thought that I would throw that out there and hopefully you could take notes during the presentations to make sure that you can extrapolate information either way. Chairman O'Neal Thank you. That completes staff presentation; is that correct? Agenda Item No.l Page 12 of 49 PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Let's just start from the beginning, just briefly take a couple of minutes. We started this project back in September 2005. At that point, Castle and Cooke and City staff were on the same page and, in fact, staff -- we had our meet and confer session at the RCA. Staff made the arguments for us that our plan was consistent with the MSHCP so that we can move forward. However, soon after that meeting, we found that the -- that had changed and since then we've been fighting this battle for a long time and, as Rolfe had mentioned, we have met a number of times trying to, each side, lay out the information so the other party knew what the other was doing in trying to resolve this. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that in this case and that's why we're here tonight and what we're going to be asking you for is that our plan is consistent with the MSHCP plan and that we want you to send it up to the Council with your approval. If you had an opportunity to review that staff report and the accompanying material that we sent in, I just want to touch base briefly on some of the high points that I saw in that -- that was in that letter. First of all, you hear tonight a lot about -- here's where we have the issue with the staffs analysis -- you hear a lot about interpolation and coming up with things that, in our view, was kind of stretching trying to get to it, to a point, and sitting on a position and all along this project came in at the very beginning dealing with facts. We only want to deal with facts so that we could come to either the RCA or this body and have a strong argument that yes, indeed; this project is consistent with the plan. So with that, this project is the entry to the northern part of the city. It has commercial implications that are, in our opinion, far and wide that something special is going to go on here in the near future -- in the very near future, in fact. Our proposal calls for an 825 --along 825-foot wash, a 400-foot conserved area closer to Lake Street, and I know staff had just mentioned it was 75 feet. In fact, we actually have 400 feet and then it narrows down to the 75 feet. So we have that. The actual width of the creek is eight feet and the site currently has one percent Agenda Item No.l Page 14 of 49 PAGE 15 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 riparian vegetation and 99 percent non-native with much of that eucalyptus. The MSHCP targets six birds, two of which are listed, none of which are located on the property. So we don't have species; we don't have habitat. Why are we here? Good question. There's also discussion that because this property is adjacent to lands that are excluded from the MSHCP because of a settlement, that there should be more scrutiny placed on this property. There's nothing in the MSHCP plan that says that. Also, in much of the discussions with staff in a number of meetings, the concern was, well, if the species and the habitat isn't there now, well, we're looking for -- into the future of what it could be. Well, what it could be -- there's a lot of things that could be. I mean, if you have a piece out in the middle of nowhere maybe something will happen on that as well. But we're not dealing, again, with facts. A couple more items here. One of the slides shows the adjacent properties that have already gone into conservation and due to a HANS Process and an acquisition, if you add those two together, that comes to approximately 72 percent conserved already. Now, on behalf of the RCA, I believe someone is acquiring on behalf of them additional properties adjacent to those, which, when you add everything up, it's going to be in excess of 85 percent more than the targeted -- that which is targeted in the plan. So, you know, with that, there's no requirement that this conservation -- that going through this stream has to be a certain size. Take a look at the biology and kind of leave it up to the actual species and habitat that's on the property and make a decision and I think that's what we've done and we've done a good job with that. With this, I'm going to turn the rest of this presentation over to Steve Miles and he can walk you through these slides. Thank you. Mr. Miles Thank you, Scott. Honorable Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, it's with great pleasure that I'm here today presenting this information to you. It's been a Agenda Item No.l Page 15 of 49 PAGE 16 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 long time and it's a pleasure to see some familiar faces. A little bit of background on my expertise since we are dealing with evidence and facts and, as the City Attorney pointed out, there may be an issue with making findings based on substantial evidence in the record. So by way of evidence, and by way of my background, have an ecology degree from the University of California at Irvine and I also have a masters in environmental sciences along with a Juris Doctorate so I do feel as though I am qualified to at least nibble on the periphery of some of the science that goes along with the legal issues that I'll be going through mostly with you this evening. I'm going to have a substantive argument, a procedural argument, and I'm then going to hand this presentation over to our team biologist, Dr. Jack Turner. We're going to be getting some into fairly -- some minutia in detail, so, at this time, I would encourage at any time, feel free to interrupt my presentation if any questions come up because I think that it's appropriate to ask them when the question comes up as opposed to at the end of my presentation. I'm going to start off with a nuts and bolts review of the MSHCP and the self criteria consistency analysis that was submitted to you as early as late 2005. As you see here, lay of the land, this is the proposed conservation boundary, we've got Cell 3854, which is an independent Cell, and you have Cell 3751, which is a portion of the Cell Group J that we'll be referring to quite extensively. With respect -- we can go to the next slide. With respect to 3854, the Cell Group here and the individual Cell, the critical piece of this Cell consistency is that 10 to 20 percent of the Cell is to be conserved in the northeastern portion of the Cell, which is right here. That hashed area is approximately 20 percent, so that's the high end of the range. So with respect to that individual Cell, there really is no way to make a finding that the project as proposed is inconsistent with Cell 3854. Agenda Item No.1 Page 16 of 49 PAGE 17 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Moving onto the northern portion of the parcel, we have Cell 3751 which encompasses the lion's share of the property and that is in Cell Group J. The basic part of Cell Group J, and it looks like a J, is that approximately 75 to 85 percent of this Cell Group is to be conserved in the northern and western portions of the Cell Group. Again, this is the parcel in question. The northern portion of the Cell Group's up here, and the western portion is here, and here is what is already conserved, 1,360 acres. So we're already at --just with these holdings right here, you're at 71 percent of the Cell Group. Later on, Hardy Strozier is going to present some information on some case studies and keep in mind that number of 71 percent. Even though the Cell Group J says 75 to 85 percent, we're going to be talking about the discretion that this body has in interpreting and applying criteria under the MSHCP. In addition to that, those holdings, 3653 and 3751, .there's additional acquisition efforts that are under way, negotiations for acquisition. Right around this little piece here, there are several postings that the land is for conservation purposes. So the reality is that with the conservation of this, ultimately you're going to go to 1,571 acres and you're going to be at about 82 percent of the Cell Group which, again, we're getting to the upper range of the conservation requirement for Cell Group J. This also doesn't take into consideration Interstate 15. This whole entire area -- there's Interstate 15 right there. If you include the I-15 territory, you're actually getting close to 95 percent conservation for Cell Group J. Okay. If we go to slide 34. I want to turn to an analysis of Cell Group J. From the staff report, you're familiar with the calculation that's been derived and that comes from Cell Group I. Whenever you apply Cell criteria from one Cell Group to another, you're applying Cell criteria that does not apply to the Cell Group; that's called criteria refinement. And if you do that, you need to go through a procedure under the MSHCP that provides for public information and scrutiny by the regulatory agencies. By applying unilaterally Cell Group I criteria to Cell Group J, you're Agenda Item No.l Page 17 of 49 PAGE 18 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 violating the MSHCP. Arguably, that alone is an abuse of discretion and with respect to the findings that may or may not procedurally need to be made tonight, I would recommend that if you deny this project, that you would be well-served to make findings that support that denial because, again, things like applying Cell criteria that don't apply to Cell Group J, that's patently an error. I want to read a little bit -- just a couple passages from the staff report pertaining to Cell Group J and Cell Group I and then I'll turn to the slide. In my review of the staff report Iwas -- again, the recommendation is denial. I was surprised to see that there wasn't a whole lot in the staff report that talked about why the 120-foot average, not 75 feet, 120-foot average, why that is inconsistent with MSHCP. There's a lot about why staff believes that 175 feet or why the RCA feels that 175 feet is the benchmark. I think at the end of the staff report, it's something along the lines of 175 is it. So 176 is good, 174 is bad; it's abright-lined rule. I don't know how you reached that, but that's kind of the analysis. Now that goes to why the City's staff believes that their proposal is consistent with MSHCP but the staff report does not have a lot of information and it doesn't really even attempt to back up its conclusion that 120-foot average is inconsistent. The closest that the staff report comes is in one paragraph. It says, "Recall from above that the conservation criteria for both Cell Group J and Cell Group I require that the riparian areas for both Cell Groups connect." Now, I just offer that of course Cell Group I and Cell Group J connect; they're adjacent to one another. And as you saw from the map, 75 feet width downstream, that's certainly going to connect. It's actually going to connect to an exempted parcel before it reaches Cell Group I, but we'll get into that later. Continuing on with the paragraph in the staff report, it states that, "In order to connect and to prevent bottle necking -" which is actually a conservation biology term that our biologist is going to get into in a few moments -- the staff report says that, "the width of the Temescal Wash should be consistent in both Cell Group I and Cell Group J. Therefore, because Cell Group I requires 264 linear feet of land along Agenda Item No. ] Page 18 of 49 PAGE 19 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 the length of Temescal Wash to be conserved, staff concluded that the same 264 linear feet should be conserved along the length of Temescal Wash as it bisects Cell Group J." Okay. We're going to talk about this calculation of 264 linear feet; it's actually a width. You saw the diagram, it's actually an offset from the medium of the Temescal Wash, which is interesting, but, basically, staff is saying that you need 264 feet in width for Temescal Wash and they derive this from Cell Group I. First point, there's no evidence before you of a disconnect. Again, this application shows a 75-foot width of a riparian corridor that goes -- the adjacent parcel is an exempted property and that continues on into Cell Group I. So connectivity -- there's nothing in the record that talks about a disconnect. Second, the analysis here ignores the exempted property. That's the real issue here and I think it's something that we'll want to discuss at the closing of my comments. The third point, 264 feet of width has nothing to do with connectivity. I mean, you have connectivity at 75 feet or 263 feet at 174 feet and at 300 feet. There's no -- when you talk about connectivity, you think you'd hear about there's something precluding that riparian corridor from going downstream. That's just not the case here. That's really kind of the closest the staff report comes to saying that 120-foot width is inconsistent with the MSHCP. The bottleneck is, again, something that Dr. Turner will pick up on and, again, what I'd like to do is go to slide.-- the covered project slide if you wouldn't mind, Michael. Let's talk about Cell Group I because there's two things. This is the actual language of Cell Group I and it does say the conservation will focus on riparian habitat associated with Temescal Wash. Areas conserved within the Cell Group will be connected, and, again, we have connectivity, to riparian habitat -- proposed for conservation of Cell Group J to the east and Cell Group H to the west. Conservation within this Cell Group will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group focusing on the southern portion of the Cell Group. That five percent doesn't necessarily have to be dedicated entirely to the riparian corridor. This is just like any other quantitative criteria in an individual Cell or Cell Group. Five percent of the Cell Agenda Item No.l Page 19 of 49 PAGE 20 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Group in the southern portion of the Cell Group shall be conserved. That's the standard, not five percent shall be width dedicated to Temescal Wash. So this whole take five percent of the Cell Group and then take that acreage and apply it over the lineal length of the stream to come up with a width, that's not what Cell Group I criteria really dictates. Commissioner Zanelli Steven, excuse me, you asked that I could stop you. Where did you get that five percent standard from? Standard of what, sir? Mr. Miles The five percent is actually in Cell Group I as a criteria. It's right here. It says conservation will be approximately five percent of the Cell Group so there's a number of Cells in the Group and it's from the MSHCP exactly. The point here, though, is you'll see that it doesn't say anything along the lines of Temescal Wash as a linkage or constrained linkage shall be 264 feet. In fact, the calculation is an error because it isn't a 100 percent dedication to a riparian corridor. There's certainly a focus on it, but it's not 100 percent. And the critical point is that what you're seeing is staff has taken criteria from Cell Group I that derived ahard-lined fixed number for a linkage and applied it to Cell Group J. On that point, let's go to -- let's start with this slide and then we're going to go into the standards for linkages and answer the question, does the MSHCP require a fixed number for a linkage let alone a constrained linkage? Let's start with this slide. Reserved design is intended to describe one way in which the MSHCP conservation area could be configured consistent with MSHCP criteria. It does not represent the only possible reserve that could be assembled consistent with the MSHCP. Flexibility is intended to be incorporated in the reserve assembly process. This is why I point out the fact that it does not appear that the staff report has the evidence to say that 120 feet is inconsistent. There may be various configurations that are consistent and within the realm of discretion. I would argue Agenda Item No.l Page 20 of 49 PAGE 21 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 that 120 feet is purely and clearly within the realm of discretion and I'll point out that when you derive 175 feet in width from the wrong Cell Group, that's an abusive discretion. Now, getting back to the question, does the linkage require a set, hard fast rule, you know, ignore hydrology, ignore the organic nature of a stream, 264 feet, that's the way it's going to look. No width requirements are set by the MSHCP for the Temescal corridor and I'll go a little bit further. Nothing in the MSHCP states that you shall ever have a width requirement for any linkage. And, again, this is a linkage that's talking about targeted avian species; we talked about the six birds. It's a constrained corridor. Now let me talk to you about linkages. If you go to the Environmental Impact Report for the MSHCP. There was a whole round of commentary when people had questions and they needed clarification and there was a whole litany of responses to those questions. I'm going to read a few of the RCA responses to those questions that relate to linkages. Response C2-5. "Linkages cannot be identified until after the cores are identified and assembled." This talks about a sequencing that we're going to get into a little bit more when we start figuring out where's the City with their core conservation? Continuing on with that same response to comment, "Accordingly, the linkages do not have hard-lined conservation boundaries at this point in time and will be assembled in a most efficient manner possible." Response to comment J4-10, "The dimensions of linkages as well as all other components of additional reserve lands are provided through interpretation of the criteria as development and reserve assembly proceed." And here's the one that's most on point. Same responsive comment, J4-10, "Width and length of linkages are specifically not proscribed in the MSHCP to allow flexibility in reserve assembly and to benefit from property-specific information anticipated and become available during the long-term MSHCP implementation process." That's what we're talking about Agenda Item No.l Page 21 of 49 PAGE 22 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3. 2007 right here. You now have, and you're going to hear from the biologist, about project- specific information. And the fact that you're -- the staff report is taking Cell Group I and they're coming up with a tenuous argument about a 264-foot width for Temescal Wash. The MSHCP specifically did not proscribe that. It's contrary to the whole concept of a soft-line conservation plan. I'd like to also talk about the proposal that the. City staff is giving tonight. I think it might be -- and, again, this is getting into what findings this body may need or may not need to make -- but I'm kind of curious what that proposal really is. I mean, we all know that it's 175 feet in width and we saw that offset off of Temescal Wash. There's a couple factors with that 175-foot width. One is if you have a homogenous or the same 264-foot or 175-foot width, you're going to actually increase edge effect on -- for Temescal Wash in relation to the 400-foot width that contours down to 75 feet in width. It's because that connectivity and the volume, if you look at it, or really its acreage, that is on the front of that property -- as you're moving downstream if you have a 400-foot frontage and it tapers to a 275-foot frontage, you're going to have less linear area. So you're going to have less edge effect. One other point with respect to the project is that if it's just 175 feet, that's going to get you into kind of what's called a LEAP Two process. It's going to be fine, pay for it, acquire it somehow, and also what's being proposed right now is 120 foot on average with an enhancement of the biological characteristics of the stream. If it's 175 feet by this application of Cell Group. I criteria -- that doesn't include enhancement -- so you're going to get 175 feet of eucalyptus woodland so that's something -- it's kind of -- I'd like to maybe know a little bit more about what City staff is proposing because I didn't really get a whole lot from the staff report on what they're truly proposing. Chairman O'Neal Steven? Agenda Item No.l Page 22 of 49 PAGE 23 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Mr. Miles Yes, sir? Chairman O'Neal We need to move this on a little bit. Mr. Miles Okay. I'm going to just briefly touch on the -- I'm done with my substantive argument, Mr. Chairman. If I could -- allow me a couple of minutes just to kind of touch on some procedural arguments, I'll get through it real quick. We can talk a little bit more about the discretion of this body and maybe if it gets to a point where you might want to ask a question, I can elaborate, but the plan specifically states the RCA does not usurp local land use controls. Through this conflict resolution process, I would offer that when you go 20 months on a LEAP, especially a LEAP One, it's certainly within the discretion of this body and it's within the MSHCP implementation policies to review it, send it on to the City Council and that's it. The alternative dispute resolution procedures in the MSHCP occur in two areas; section 6.1.1 and in section 6.6.2(e). Now, 6.1.1 is the HANS Process or the LEAPs Process and it's a discretionary dispute resolution process that the applicant can go through and I'd like to read -- Chairman O'Neal Can I stop you just for a second. Mr. Miles Yes, sir. Chairman O'Neal I'm not quite certain I followed that exactly. Are you saying then -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that it's not -- Mr. Miles I probably said nothing of clarity. I'm going to - Agenda Item No.l Page 23 of 49 PAGE 24 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal -- that it's not necessarily that you need to go to the ADHOC Committee for resolution? Mr. Miles Correct. Chairman O'Neal That is in fact the City -- I'm not quite -- could you -- Mr. Miles Sure. What I'm going to do is -- let me read -- actually, section 6.6.2(e), which is the joint project review meet and confer introductory paragraph. This is what meet and confer comes from. The introduction says that, "To ensure that the requirements of the permits on the MSHCP, the implemented agreement are properly met, a joint project acquisition review process shall be instituted by the RCA. This process shall not in any way limit the permittee's local land use authority, prevent a permittee from approving a project, or change the provisions of the HANS process described in section 6.6.1." What I'm telling you is that in section 6.1.1 is that alternative dispute resolution process that's discretionary and it's a vehicle, it's a tool for an applicant to go through. Again, the joint project review time periods, the 14-day JPR, or the 30- day meet and confer, the 30 days for the ADHOC Committee, those time periods have come and gone. It would be well within your discretion to say, look, we note that 6.6.2(e) talks about how the LEAPs Process and that eight alternative dispute resolution processes cannot be changed by the joint project review provisions and you can moue on. Chairman O'Neal So basically what you're saying is that City Council can be the end to all to this? Mr. Miles I would offer that. It's certainly under the facts of this matter. Again, in one of the -- everywhere you look it talks about -- especially when you're dealing with the 80R Agenda Item No.l Page 24 of 49 PAGE 25 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 procedure, is that there is no usurpation of the local land use authority. It's within your discretion to decide procedurally what you need to do with this project. Chairman O'Neal And the final authority is City Council; is that correct? Mr. Miles Correct. Chairman O'Neal Although the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Miles Correct. And that's very clear from the implementation policies and, again, I'll read verbatim that, "If the applicant and planning staff' and this is where we're at right now, is that there are four basic options available to the applicant. One is to initiate a conflict resolution process. Again, in the LEAP context, that's discretionary for the applicant. In the JPR context, it's come and gone and that JPR dispute resolution cannot modify the LEAP dispute resolution process. Chairman O'Neal So in other words, the sentence that's on page seven of 18 that reads, "The matter shall be submitted to an ADHOC committee made up of elected officials," is not necessarily correct. Mr. Miles Yes. I would say that you can certainly -- Chairman O'Neal The City, in fact, does not have to go to this ADHOC Committee; correct? Mr. Miles Correct. Again, the fourth option in the implementation policy is proceed with a conflicting land use design with recommendations of project denial from the Planning Division to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. That's where we're at right now and, again, I mean, 20 months -- really 22 months, you can certainly -- it's Agenda Item No.l Page 25 of 49 PAGE 26 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 a procedural issue, so your discretion and your land use authority certainly it's within your discretion. And I would offer that it would be futile at this time in the game to then go back and try to hash this out through a meet and confer. It's just going to be a delay. Chairman O'Neal Right. Would you mind moving onto the biology part, please? Mr. Miles Yes, actually, I will. At this point in time I'd like to introduce Dr. Jack Turner. Dr. Turner is a -- in addition to being a field biologist, he's a professor and he's not just a professor, but he teaches post-doctorates at a University: He's very familiar and intimate with the site and he'll run through the biology for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Steven. For the record, Dr. Turner; is that correct? Dr. Turner Yes, sir. My name is -- I'm Dr. Jack Turner. I am the project's biologist with The Planning Associates, 3151 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. I am a teaching professor on sabbatical leave from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, where we put a little different referendum on target species than they do here in California. By way of introduction, I was told I should tell an attorney joke but I don't think I will, but we had several selected. At any rate, by way of introduction, I have 40 years of biological assessment and evaluation work behind me. I have evaluated proposals in research for the National Institute of Health, I've done it for the National Science Foundation, I've also worked with the Environmental \Protection Agency in Washington D.C. I'm not --although I'm from Texas right now, I'm a local boy I was educated at Thornton High School, graduated from Cal State Fullerton and went to UC Riverside, so this part of the world is not unfamiliar to me. I have published in both national and international refereed publications on Agenda Item No.l Page 26 of 49 PAGE 27 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Endangered Species Act and species contained within the Endangered Species Act and I have provided to you a brief a resume as well as a declaration of my views, if you wish, or perspectives, on the viability of the MSHCP constrained linkage quarter number six as proposed by Castle & Cooke. Mr. Strozier either has or is in the process of handing out to you a number of handouts that will accompany my talk and I have provided you also kind of a running script, if you wish, of my comments here. I guess at the outset, there are several things that bother me. First of all, the staff and the RCA with its MSHCP biological description on the 909 site is almost totally in error in terms of its description of what is there. In my opinion, the staff and the RCA have picked out, or if you will pardon the expression, cherry picked the information that has been provided in order to serve their own opinions or goals. To begin with, the staff on page four, paragraph two, of the agenda, describes the Temescal Wash to be a special limited resource that runs through the project site. Now it's difficult for me to classify a 98 percent exotic invasive stand of eucalyptus trees with a streaming flow of sewer plant effluent running through it as some kind of special limited resource. In Texas we would call it something else. But, by the same token, here it is accorded the highest of pristine types of environments. I fully expected a mountain stream with trout running through it. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has not been provided with sufficient facts to make an independent conclusion, only those facts which support the staff. The staff has failed to provide these facts. I work in an academic community and withholding facts to prove your thesis is considered an egregious and unethical act. But here we're dealing more with political science and not real science; or are we? There seems to be an inordinate amount of rhetoric surrounding the nine acres of this near biological desert stand of dangerous invasive exotic trees that includes this stream flow from the sewer plant. Castle and Cooke has proposed a series of habitat enhancements to this site, yet these enhancements have gone unchallenged Agenda Item No.l Page 27 of 49 PAGE 28 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 only that they are wrong or that the 75-foot buffer or strip through this ground for conservation is inadequate; not why, but just that it's wrong. I can remember my dad saying you can't do that, I'd say, why, because I said so. I'm sorry, that's not good enough here. Just because they say so, I want some reasons behind it. None of what they have said is supported by the published literature and most all of it's in what we call gray literature or unreferenced citation. As an example, there seems to be a controversy that arises when -- from what is described by the MSHCP text as the proposed constrained linkage number six, serving to protect six species of migratory birds. The operative word here is migratory. They're not here all year round -- migratory birds, only two of which are listed as the -- under the Endangered Species Act, the least Bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher. The remaining birds -- the white-tailed kite, the cooper's hawk, also known as the chicken hawk for those people who understand that, the yellow warbler, and the yellow-breasted chat -- none of these six migratory species live in or near the project site and they couldn't even if they wanted to because there's no habitat there for them. The MSHCP incorrectly categorizes the habitat that's found on this site. Before we go into this, let me first clarify the City staff's mischaracterization of Castle & Cooke's proposed conservation easement, commencing on page three, paragraph seven, and extending throughout the document, what they elude to is the Castle and Cooke easement is a 75-foot wide piece of ground. This is not true. It's not a 75-foot piece of ground. It is a piece of ground that is 400 feet extending down to 75 feet with an average of 125 feet which is vastly different than if somebody were to tell you that it's a 75-foot easement through the property. Now we'll return to this in a minute. Important to our discussion are some very -- what I consider critical points. As most of the California natural -- let me back up. The California Department of Fish and Game produces a document quarterly called the California Natural Diversity Database. What this is is a listing of observations that's produced quarterly Agenda Item No. l Page 28 of 49 PAGE 29 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 throughout the state of California on endangered and sensitive species. What you have in front of you is the most recent version of what was referred to as the CNDDB database. You have the most recent database observations for the 9.09 acre site. Notice that there is nothing within one mile radius. You pick up a few hits in five miles, and after, in the ten miles, you pick up maybe one or two more but nothing doubling in terms of distance. The reason being is the habitat is not there. The primary reason for MSHCP planning species not being found on the site is the lack of habitat. The eucalyptus dominates this project site. The least Bell's vireo requires rivering riparian habitats that typically feature a dense willow cover within one to two meters of the ground and a dense stratified canopy. That means you have to have layering in the forestation. On this site, you have a dense packing of eucalyptus trees and nothing more. At the eastern end of the site, there are a few willows, a tamarisk tree, which is another exotic, and that's about it. The least Bell's vireo requiring this kind of stratified habitat and you say what about the other species. Well, the other species including the chat and the yellow warbler and the willow flycatcher require about the same kind of habitat. So we're not talking about just one species; we're talking about habitat requirements for all of these. And what is said about the Least Bell's Vireo is that the most critical factor is that they require a dense shrub layer at two to ten feet above the ground. This is cited in works in the MSHCP by Gold Wasser in 1981 and Franthrup in 1989. This just doesn't exist on the site, yet the staff would have you believe it does. A primary reason, as I mentioned before, for the absence of this kind of habitat relates to the fact that the eucalyptus tree is found on site. The eucalyptus tree there exists as what we call a monoculture. A monoculture means it's just one species; that's it. And the eucalyptus tree that is there exists as a monoculture because that is what it evolved to do. It is extremely good at getting rid of competitors; competitors being any other vegetation. Agenda Item No.l Page 29 of 49 PAGE 30 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Why is the eucalyptus tree bad? I believe in your package you were provided an article up in northern California. First of all, the eucalyptus tree is a fire hazard. Its deciduous bark, its deciduous leaves, and it also is what we call aself-pruner; it has deciduous limbs which happen to fall off at usually inopportune times; when your car's parked close or somebody's walking underneath. They're shallow-rooted. You get a little water -- you'd like to get a little water, but if we get any water, the roots become loose, a wind will take them over. It is an enteric toxin. What that means is if you eat it, you die, unless you're a koala bear. Since most of us are not koala bears, if you eat it, you die. Not only do humans die, but so do the wildlife that eat it. It's an extreme enteric toxin. It's also a phytotoxin. It sends out chemicals from its roots and its leaves that prevent other seeds from germinating and other plants from growing; hence, we have a monoculture. It also is capable of suckering off. If you've ever cut down a eucalyptus tree, you know very quickly it suckers back from the stump. But more importantly it will sucker out from its roots at virtually any time. So it continually spreads its growth. In fact, many eucalyptus trees are all the same age within a growth because they are clones of one another; genetically identical. And of course if they don't reproduce asexually, they are 80 percent efficient at pollination -- or germination, excuse me. So you have 80 seedlings out of 100 seeds produced germinating. That produces the monoculture. Now, with that said, the MSHCP in section 3.1.4 in its description of conservation principles and major tenets calls for the protection of reserves from encroachment by non-native species. Why, then, are we protecting a monocultured eucalyptus grove on the 909 as being some kind of fantastic resource? On the first page of your staff report, the MSHCP characterizes criteria Cell Group I and it conveys the information that this description in Criteria Cell I is how the Temescal Wash is to be treated. That's a bit of a stretch. It then indicates that the staff extrapolated a calculation in order to recommend a riparian quarter of 264 feet on the project site. They extrapolated this from a Cell criteria Group J. Once they Agenda Item No.l Page 30 of 49 PAGE 31 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 came up with the 264-foot number, the County said they would accept 175 foot. Do I hear 120? The word extrapolation is the operative term here because the term extrapolation relates to a situation where a trend is continued beyond a point for which there are facts or data. Think of it as driving down the road looking only in your rearview mirror to determine where you're going to go. What happens when the road turns? What you see behind you is a straight road. The road just turned. You don't know that. That's what extrapolation means. And in science, extrapolation only is perceived under the most rigorous statistical conditions. In other words, they guessed. They made personal opinion with no information. Personal opinion appears to be the basis of the staffs recommendation. The MSHCP text is totally silent on corridor width or conservation set asides for streaming, as I say, sewer treatment plants, for the Temescal Wash. There are no numbers about how wide a conservation easement should be or how it should be calculated. I once mused that we know more about building the ark than we know about building conservation easements; and that's true. Every situation is different and that is why the MSHCP doesn't say anything about how wide or how long it should be. One size does not fit all. There is not information from the City staff that you can use to extrapolate to a 264- or 175-foot width based on that conservation description. It is somewhat unsettling from a scientific perspective that if both the City and the County have the same information, and allegedly the same calculating ability, why they end up with two different numbers both meeting the same criteria. Obviously, it must not be as hard-pressed as we like to think it is. Do I hear 120? Even more contradiction is the staffs position that 328 feet is necessary for endangered birds, including the vireo, to breed in habitat. That is to say the biological opinion for the MSHCP says 328 feet is needed for these endangered birds. So how can the staff claim that 175 feet will work? Obviously, there must be a problem. Well, if the 175-foot corridor will work, how can they not explain needing Agenda Item No.l Page 31 of 49 PAGE 32 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 a bigger width? The Castle & Cooke corridor is in fact wider than the 328 feet. In fact, it's 400 feet wide at one description. The question, in my reference to 125 feet, understand, that's the average width across the project site. How can staffs RCA's 175 quarter work when they just explained that they needed 328 feet in order to have reproducing habitat for the birds? The Castle and Cooke quarter is in fact wider than the 175 feet. It is further perturbing that neither the City nor the County are concerned with the quality of the habitat that is present, only the quantity, the acres, or the number of eucalyptus trees they can gather in; an exotic tree that is suggested by the MSHCP not to be a benefit. The reasons why none of the bird species occur is due to the absence of habitat. You don't have 328 feet of riparian habitat; you don't have hardly any. The staffs linkage explanation appears to be similarly plagued by inconsistencies. Quarters do not provide live-in habitat for species in contrast with a linkage. A linkage provides for permanent resident live-in habitat as well as movement habitat. This is right out of the MSHCP section 3.1.4. The MSHCP's term for quarter, however, has been conspicuously omitted from the staffs presentation. The City and the County have indicated 264- and 175-foot, respectively. Conservation set aside to support a biological diverse habitat; that's on page six, paragraph four. Does the staff not realize this property is characterized by a monotypic stand of eucalyptus trees with no diversity, no habitat for planning species, and never will if nothing is done -- is not done, excuse me. The property is characterized as part of the proposed constrained linkage number six suggesting live-in habitat that has problems to begin with only -- on agenda page four, paragraph three, it is stated that the MSHCP biological opinion by the federal government on the least Bell's vireo requires a minimum of 328 feet of undeveloped landscape adjacent to the riparian woodland and scrub habitat. Obviously, that's the reason why there's no birds there. I wish to give you two examples, however. Agenda Item No.l Page 32 of 49 PAGE 33 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Although the MSHCP biological opinion cites 328 feet, we have two examples very close. One is a place called Strawberry Farms; it's a golf course; it's located in Sand Canyon in Irvine, California; it has a similar creek corridor problem with a corridor width of 75 to 120 feet in length -- in width. It has been the subject of ten years of focus surveys including those of least Bell's vireo imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game and, at the outset of the study, there was one pair -- there was a sighting of one male. There has now been, in the ten years worth of data, between 16 and 100 male sightings on the same piece of habitat, essentially conditioned in the same manner that is proposed for the Castle & Cooke property. We have the Crossings just up the road, another Castle & Cooke development. It had a stream running through it as well. It was similarly modified, except here we have a 35-foot corridor. We have two and a half times the species on that site as we do on the 909. Just a little bit of vegetation is adequate. I think one last thing I want to say, and that has to do with bottlenecking. The term bottleneck is a term which refers to evolutionary biology, conservation biology, and population biology, it's a collective term, and what it really means is a population die off due to reduced populations -- we're talking about a 50 percent die off. The operative term is "population die off." You don't have any birds here to die off and so there's no bottleneck. Birds can fly over the site, they can fly through the site, they can fly down the interstate; there is no bottleneck. Twenty miles down the road is the Valhalla for all least Bell's vireo and a whole bunch of other endangered species at Prado Dam; 20 miles as the bird flies, so to speak. The site has been mischaracterized. You have not been provided all of the information. I would suggest to you that, based upon staff information, you cannot make a scientific or an informed decision. I would hope that you would take some of these matters into consideration. Thank you. Agenda Item No.l Page 33 of 49 PAGE 34 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Thank you, sir. Mr. Miles Real quickly, we're going to have two more speakers and at this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Hardy Strozier. He's an AICP certified planner and I said certified, not certifiable. He's going to share with you a couple of case studies, as I mentioned before, with respect to the MSHCP and how the exercise of discretion works within the plan. Chairman O'Neal Yeah, Hardy, before you start, and I really do -- I mean no disrespect to everybody, but if we can make it a little bit faster, I would appreciate that. Hardy Strozier I'm going to ask Mr. Miles here to hand out some material. It's titled "Criteria Refinement." I just want to re-emphasize that what is called for in making one -- trying to take one bit of information from Cell Group I, Cell Group J is not permitted, and I'm just giving you the law out of the MSHCP. Now, two other things I want to point out; two case studies. My thesis is that you don't have to go with 75, 85 percent conservation. In fact, staff's proposal would have you at the top of the range, at like 85 percent or 100 percent of the top of the range and the city of Perris, in a recent project -- and I'm going to hand out these documents to you -- on a 500- acre project, the RCA and City went from 50 to 60 percent conservation where there were endangered species on the project site and they said instead of 50 or 60 percent we're only going to require 23 percent and they based it on the on-site biology. One other fact you should be aware of is that in this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game disagreed with the RCA and City's position, yet no lawsuit, no revocation of the permit occurred. Similarly, in your City here on a LEAP that occurred in 2005, it was a tract that was in front of this commission, Tuscany West Tract Map 25473. Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agenda Item No.l Page 34 of 49 PAGE 35 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 recommended a higher percentage. This City and the RCA said, no, we'll do a lower percentage. In fact, we will take what's required on this tract site and we'll say it's been accommodated off site. We'll do it off site and the service said, no. Fish and Game said, no. MSHCP says you can't do that without criteria refinement, but the City did it anyway without ad hoc committee, without going to the service, and nobody filed a lawsuit. My point is you have a vast amount of discretion to make your own decisions. Thank you very much. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Hardy. Mr. Miles The last speaker is someone you all know, Mr. Tom Tomlinson, Vice President of Castle and Cooke. Mr. Tomlinson Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I apologize for the length of the presentation. It's a very important subject to Castle and Cooke. We have a lot of properties within Lake Elsinore. We're looking at acquiring more, so it's very important to us, so I apologize. I'll make mine very brief. I just want to, in closing, just ask the Commission in their vote to approve the request as presented by the applicant and go to the Commission of -- with the recommendation -- the Council with recommendation of approval. I think you could just simply do it based on the facts and the information you have before you and what you've heard today. A couple of other things that I'd like to talk about just very briefly, I think it would be nice to -- if we could -- I mean, 20 months is a very long time for the process -- the LEAP process. I know there are a lot of extenuating circumstances with this and I'm sure the City has done many much quicker than that, but I think it would be wise to be able to work with a developer in the community to look at the application of the MSHCP citywide to ensure that proper preservation and proper corridors and proper linkages are preserved. The feeling I have is it's almost like a land grab from the Agenda Item No.l Page 35 of 49 PAGE 36 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 County. What I've seen them take north of the freeway at Lake Street and take commercial property that I think would have been extremely valuable to the City from a revenue generation standpoint, it seems like their land banking the City of Lake Elsinore, which to me just doesn't seem fair. So I would ask that staff be asked to work with the development community to really sit down and develop a program that makes sense rather than just to do it piecemeal like it is right now. Excuse me just one second. Part of that process, I think we need to establish, what is the City requirement or the City expectation for participation in the MSHCP. I've heard everything from a range, and I believe Joe Monaco has asked at our February 1 sharing or public hearing to come back with a target acreage; I believe the Mayor asked that. I don't know if he has or if anyone has come back, but I believe the target acreage was somewhere between the 4830 and the 7870 acres that were presented in the original MSHCP with the acreage within Lake Elsinore. Also I'd like -- in a second area I would also like to see the City work with Pacific Clay property -- the actual settlement agreement requires that there's a coordination between the City and the developer to implement that settlement agreement. I think part of that implementation is coordinating these areas around that exempted property. A lot of what we've heard today is in Cell Group I which is all of the exempted property from the MSHCP, everything within the corridor that as been addressed today. I think it's important to actually establish what that means. How is that going to be coordinated with Pacific Clay. Again, it goes back to the overall implementation of the MSHCP within the City to be part of the same program so I would like to have those two things -- I suggest those two things in the future be done by the City staff. We are here with the. consultants that we have here and Scott Thayer is here to answer any questions that you may have. I know it's a very complex problem and topic, so if there's anything we can answer, we'd like to do so. Thank you. Agenda Item No.l Page 36 of 49 PAGE 37 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Tom. If you wouldn't mind sitting down in front. This is a public hearing and I do have no request to speak on this topic. However, anyone wishing to speak in favor of this may do so at this time. Anyone wishing to speak against this -- oh, sure. That would be Mr. Good; is that correct? Please state your name and address for the record. Jim Good My name is Jim Good. I'm the attorney for Maruhachi Ceramics of America, MCA, which manufactures a very high-end roofing the in Corona and, as I mentioned at the joint workshop back in January, we will be bringing into this Commission a proposed project for mining a property on the east side of the 15, a few miles up northerly from Nichols Road. It's a mining project that leads to ultimately a development and commercial-type development. We don't have a dog in this fight, but we have a dog in the process and so what's happening in terms of process is extremely important to us and so that's the reason I'm up here speaking. I'm not going to try your patience to listening to more speeches tonight, but that's exactly why we're here and so what you do in terms of this process is very precedental, we believe, to the MCA project. So thank you very much. Chairman O'Neal Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak against this may do so at this time. Anyone wishing to speak at all? I will close the public hearing at 8:25 and start with Vice Chair. Vice Chair Gonzales I'm very familiar with this area. It goes back a long way and I hope this doesn't continue arguments beyond where that little bridge is. My daughter was thrown from a horse right at that site years ago before the freeway was in. If we look at another project, if we block it up, how much when we look at flood plains in 1980 when we had the floods, the flood backed up from Lee Lake, which is now Corona lake, into Agenda Item No.l Page 37 of 49 PAGE 38 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 the Deruyter project and that was around '79 and '80 and I know it was -- we were on that road constantly because my daughter was engaged to Deruyter and she -- we constantly went by the road and it never did flood in that area; that spot. It flooded down by the Kitchell (phonetic] house farther down. So, after talking with Castle and Cooke, that first week when they showed us the project, I went down there and looked at the project and I stayed in my car and spent about half an hour because I wasn't dressed properly to walk into it. I didn't hear anything at the site. Two days later I went back again with Levi's and binoculars and went down into the site in my -- the first main area I saw a toilet bowl, trash, appliances, and a large amount of other junk. Chairman O'Neal May I stop you just for a second? Just so that you know, Vice Chair taught biology at the high school here. Vice Chair Gonzales For 36 years. When I finally got down into the willow area, I heard a large amount of birds, I did see. a tohee and a number of hummingbirds. I heard a lot of other little birds, I saw a couple sparrows. Into the eucalyptus grove area I saw one bird flying overhead, but one or two landed on there and then they took of very quickly. So that front area is worth this land as far as save the habitat. I would like to recommend that we go to City Council and approve the 75-foot width for adoption. Chairman O'Neal So the Castle and Cooke -- Vice Chair Gonzales In favor of Castle and Cooke -- Chairman O'Neal -- proposal? Vice Chair Gonzales -- proposal, yes. That's my recommendation. Agenda Item No. l Page 38 of 49 PAGE 39 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Chairman O'Neal Mr. Mendoza? Commissioner Mendoza First of all, I'd like to say that I really depend on our staff and I trust them. I'm always asking them questions and they're always helping me and I just can't thank them enough. So when they really have something and confront me like this I spend a lot of time on it and I spent a very long time on this. I really did. Mr. Tomlinson, you're right. It has been too long of a process. We need to streamline this. We really need to streamline this. I'm not an expert on MSHCP. Like everyone else, the following is my interpretation. It seems to me that the 75 feet or 22 percent of a conservation footage be considered a constrained linkage, key word, key terminology being used. After all, the definition of an MSHCP constrained linkage does not have a formula to determine the size of the constricted connection, only that a constrained linkage exists. And if that linkage exists, it would ensure anon-contiguous habitat block does not exist. Cell Group I states approximately five percent to be conserved. That's not a minimum or a maximum; it says approximately five percent. So, again, it could be interpreted as long as a linkage exists and to prevent any bottlenecking between Cells, MSHCP came up with key terminologies like constrained linkages. Also, I believe that the MSHCP biological opinion should reflect a dangerous species in there, eucalyptus trees. With that being said, it's my interpretation that this project is consistent with the MSHCP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Mendoza. Commissioner Flores? Commissioner Flores Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Castle & Cooke for their presentation and I have a few words of my own. The applicant has requested that this Planning Commission consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding Agenda Item No.l Page 39 of 49 PAGE 40 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 whether the development footprint in LEAP 2005-12 is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As all know tonight, the MSHCP has indicated and identified as assessor parcel number 390130-017 and according to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan, this proposed project is zoned for commercial specific plan uses, and the City's general plan land use map designates a project site as Algreio Ranch Pacific plan. The project site is located within the Elsinore area plan in Cell number 3751 of Cell Group J. And independent Cell number 3854, with certain properties owned by Mr. Murdock, are not subject to the MSHCP process per agreements in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lake Elsinore and the County. The 9.09 project is in fact a part of a much larger Cell Group that focuses MSHCP conservation areas on the north side of the I-15 freeway where much of the land within this Cell has already been set aside for conservation. Staff asserts the need fora 175-foot wide corridor that takes 3.05 acreage, or acres, or 33 percent, of the project site. Your concerns are based on the width eliminating development north of the creek and further restrict development south of the creek. It was determined that said Cell Group one conservation criteria require conservation to focus along the Temescal Wash and because the Temescal Wash runs along the width of Cell Group I, being 2,640 linear feet, staff divided the width of Cell Group one, which is found to be 696,960 square feet, and concluded that 264 linear feet conserved and satisfied the MSHCP. Staff concluded that the same 264 linear feet should be conserved along the length of the Temescal Wash as it bisects Cell Group I. As you're aware, staff recognizes the importance of a commercial development opportunity at the site to the developer and the City. City staff and RCA further evaluated the application 2005-12 and have balanced numerous issues in unfounded factual positions. The City and the RCA determined that the 264 feet was consistent with the MSHCP and was set aside for further review. RCA and staff including the City staff revere, by the way her name is Mrs. Wendy, concluded that a Agenda Item No.l Page 40 of 49 PAGE 41 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 lesser set aside of 175 feet is enough to support a biologically diverse habitat within the meaning of the MSHCP in that any lesser conservation amount would be inconsistent with the plan. In other words, a workable solution based on the MSHCP and federal laws and not based on personal opinion and personal standards were adjusted in accordance with the laws of the MSHCP. Castle and Cooke declined to accept an offer no more than 75 feet. As we are aware tonight, staff supports the 175 and believes that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretations of the conservation criteria. It is my understanding that U.S. Fish and Game found this project not consistent with the extent that conservation that has been identified by the MSHCP to assemble proposed core one in this area. Based on the evidence presented, the findings and exhibits provided to me by staff and the applicant's letters of comments, I find that the applicant has one analysis of the interpretation of the MSHCP and I find that staff has identified the inconsistencies interpretation of these entities. I have expressed concerns over the development of the 9.09 acreage site and find staffs recommendation to proceed to council justifiable. It has been determined that both parties are unable to reach a mutual agreement and therefore approval of the denial based on the findings and exhibits submitted to me are herewith stated. I must also include the following statement: The 9.09 commercially zoned project site may be consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly criteria, and may be in compliance with the other MSHCP plan requirements including urban wildlife and interface criteria. However, Castle and Cooke position of denial of the 175-square feet agreement by City staff, which in my view is found to be a neutral compromise, was found to be consistent by the RCA and City staff and believes that it defines the maximum allowable development footprint consistent with the most flexible interpretation of the conservation criteria surrounding the 9.09 acre project site. By accepting the alternative position by City Agenda Item No.l Page 41 of 49 PAGE 42 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 staff in all of this project would in fact be found consistent with all parties including the RCA. I have no further comments. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Zanelli? Commissioner Zanelli Having grown up in Texas, I tend to shoot from the hip as being well-organized. I do have a question for Dr. Turner, though. How did you arrive at the width that you did of 120 feet average? The 120-foot average that you had arrived at as being unacceptable - Dr. Turner That was just a mathematical derivation between the 75 and 400 feet. That the 125 was acceptable? We have two other locations where much smaller parcels of land where we have 100 to 120 feet at Strawberry Farms and then we had 35 feet just up the road where we had -- at least ways at the Strawberry Farms we had Least Bell's Vireo, which is one of the two endangered species. So, based on that -- and we can go on-site other locations where Least Bell's Vireo occurs in less than the 125 feet that we recommend down to 35 feet. Commissioner Zanelli In addition to that, should you be approved -- Castle and Cooke be approved of this project and the area where it be mitigated, what amount of time would you expect before you would have the species return to this area? Five years? Dr. Turner think that's a good round number. It all depends upon -- it's not a matter of if you build it they will come; it's a matter of if the birds are flying through and they stop and say, hey, this is all right, if the habitat is righteous for them, that's where they'll be. Now, we can go on and belabor all of the other characteristics, but some of the most important things happens to be that eucalyptus grove. Agenda Item No.l Page 42 of 49 PAGE 43 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Commissioner Zanelli I walked through the entire area so I'm very familiar with what's there including the stolen, stripped cars. In regard to our staff -- tonight you presented us with a lot of information I wish I had several weeks ago. Instead, I can't go through it tonight, but I have gone through other letters and things that have documented conversations and letters that have gone-back and forth and I have to tell you that our staff is doing the best they can to try to implement a plan that we aren't all necessarily particularly in favor of. So any time that you think that they have some personal bias in this, you are incorrect. They would love nothing more than to be able to justify your request, but they feel they have to for the protection of the city and the take permits to provide what they feel is a sound basis to stand on. So we're not in opposition to you, especially Castle and Cooke, because you've done so much for the City. So I don't want you to ever think that the staff is not on your side because I assure you they are not. Dr. Turner It's not a matter of side, sir. I'm not on anybody's side; I'm on the wildlife side. Commissioner Zanelli Well, you spend too much time in Texas. You're a liar. You shoot them as they move. [Laughter] Dr. Turner Did you have any other questions, sir? Commissioner Zanelli No, not right now. I would agree that doing, you know -- to me, I'm not as intimately familiar with the MSHCP as I'd like to be, but to me the entire purpose of this plan is to protect and promote species and habitat and what is currently there certainly doesn't do that. I know that the RCA, as they are grabbing land, I've been told that they will actually do nothing with that land until it's all acquired, which might be 20 Agenda Item No.l Page 43 of 49 PAGE 44 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 years down the road. During that time, there's a heck of a lot that can be done with properties like this that are mitigated and replanted with native habitat that would actually, you know, follow the intent of the plan. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Chairman O'Neal Thank you, Commissioner Zanelli. Before I start, I do have a couple things I'd like to say. I used to teach the history of motion picture when I was at Cerritos College and I used to rate films one through five; one being an exciting film, five being a butt numbing scale. In fact, I called it my butt numbing scale. To be perfectly honest, this is a six. While I find the staff position on this item interesting, I do not find it persuasive. Therefore, I cannot support the recommendation to deny Castle and Cooke's development footprint for the so-called 9.09-acre project. In addition, I find that it is more than consistent with the MSHCP. A number of years ago, Kevin Costner made a film about nostalgia and loss called A Field of Dreams. Costner's character is an Iowan corn farmer who becomes convinced by a mysterious voice that he is supposed to construct a baseball diamond in his cornfield. He hears a whispering phrase coming out of the corn, "If you build it, he will come." On cue, Shoeless Joe Jackson appears in a vision and later for real to hit some of Costner's fastballs. After asking if this is heaven, Joe disappears into the corn. Ultimately, Costner gets to play catch with his father settling all the old scars that he had with his father while he was alive. The interesting twist in this film's construct is that if you are a man of science or a skeptic you cannot see anything except an empty baseball field, which brings me to the first alien point, the biology. As been attested to of the six species listed in the MSHCP none have been spotted on this property or even in this specific area. Of the six, only two were actually listed by state or federal scientists as endangered and the closest was sighted a mile away, mostly at Prado dam. It is equally true that in order to provide nesting area for these species, most of the property would have to be taken and replanted. Agenda Item No.l Page 44 of 49 PAGE 45 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 The staff RCA response to the science then is if they build it then maybe the birds will come. Since the closest species is miles away, I'm not certain how they get the message. The response, of course, is, well we don't expect them to nest, we'll just provide a corridor. Never mind that the I-15 winds through this area; never mind the so-called wash has only reclaimed water running through it; never mind it winds up in a concrete channel as it meanders towards Corona. Currently, the plants that cover this property, 95 percent, are non-native eucalyptus and we are told this is why species of birds do not nest or use this property. The mandate, then, by the RCA and staff is to get rid of the eucalyptus and replant native trees and shrubs to create something called a constrained linkage. This appears, in this case, to be a fascinating piece of junk science logic which ignores the biology and history of this and the surrounding areas. All one has to do is look at old photographs of the area to find that there were no trees in this area, and that with little checking you will find that it was Charles Summer who planted most of the trees in this area. Summer got the seeds to plant eucalyptus from a man named O.W. Childs in Los Angeles. Incidentally, Mr. Childs was an immigrant from Australia. What this really means is that for over 120 years these birds have not nested in this area. Ironically, when the City recently replanted the Main Street Park, removing a number of eucalyptus shade trees, they chose not to use native specimens but to choose other pervasive non-native plant; the palm tree. I guess staff thought that birds didn't like parks, which brings us to the size of this constrained linkage. According to staff RCA, this size or width should be over 100 meters wide of undeveloped riparian woodland and scrub habitat. In a stunnirig example of Byzantine logic and totally ignoring the science of today, staff offers a strange, voodoo mathematical formula to determine the width. Since, as humans, we made up what is one and what is two, we can state with a great deal of confidence that one and one is two. It demonstrates nothing; but it must be right. Staff used a mathematical formula and it's correct; which leads me to ask the following question: Agenda Item No.l Page 45 of 49 PAGE 46 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 In the MSHCP, which takes precedent, what might happen or non-biology versus the baseline biological conditions? According to staff and RCA, it is the non-scientific what may happen case. However, in the recent case of the City of Perris, JPR and the RCA ruled that on-site biology takes precedent. Why does the RCA shift 180 degrees when it comes to Lake Elsinore? Incidentally, under Section 6 there are incentive for property owners for dedication of property to conservation, specifically, what is the City offering. It is my opinion that under analysis no conservation is required; only the traditional conservation of jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act that would maintain the linkages currently in Cell Group J. Accordingly, the 100-foot average that is being offered is in excess of what is required and reflects sound urban planning and design. Finally, the Mayor at our joint study session gave City direction as it applies to MSHCP. The last thing that -- and I'm quoting the mayor -- "The last thing was that the City was to have final say if there was an interpretation issue or dispute as to whether or not we needed to save the bugs and bunnies in this particular area. We've got the final say and the challenge from the development community has been that our staff has not been tough enough in going ahead and riding rough shot saying we disagree with RCA interpretation. Ithink that at the end of the day we'd like see things moving forward. If there's a dispute, bring it forward to the decision makers and allow us to break the tie; get it up in the public hearing process". Chairman O'Neal And I would add no man can be a servant of two masters. Thank you. I need a resolution to accept or deny Castle and Cooke. Deputy City Attorney Santana There's no resolution; it will just be a motion. Chairman O'Neal I need a motion. Agenda Item No.l Page 46 of 49 PAGE 47 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Commissioner Gonzales I'd like to make a motion that we send it to City Hall for approval fora 75-foot wide corridor meaning that this meets the MSHCP criteria and Castle & Cooke. In favor of Castle & Cooke, yes. Chairman O'Neal I need a second. Commissioner Mendoza Second. Chairman O'Neal Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying "Aye." Vice Chair Gonzales Aye. Commissioner Mendoza Aye. Commissioner Zanelli Aye. Chairman O'Neal Those opposed? Commissioner Flores No. Chairman O'Neal That would be four, one. This takes us to our next item. Thank you, gentlemen. 7. General Plan Conformity of the Summary Street Vacation for the right- of-way known as "Flint Street" Director of Community Development Preisendanz provided an overview of the project and requested Public Works Director Seumalo to review it with the Commission and answer questions. Agenda Item No.l Page 47 of 49 PAGE 48 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Public Works Director Seumalo provided an overview of the project. He stated that staff. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commissioner's had no comments. MOVED BY MENDOZA, SECONDED BY FLORES, AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2007-125, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECCOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE VACATION OF FLINT STREET CONFORMS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT. STAFF COMMENTS Public Works Director Seumalo gave a Capitol Improvement Projects update. Planning Consultant Donahoe had no comments Planning Manager Weiner had no comments. Director of Community Development had no comments. Deputy City Attorney Santana had no comments. Commissioner Zanelli thanked staff for their hard work; he also thanked Environmental Specialist Worthey for her hard work. He further stated that if Council would like to take a harder line on this matter they need to give Ms. Worthey proper direction to do that. Commissioner Flores thanked staff for updating him on the project and he said that staff did an outstanding job on in providing the factual rules and regulations surrounding the debate and is very proud of those who submitted and worked on this issue. He further stated that we all knew that this had to go to Council but regarding the vote on this project he stands behind staff 100% and whether we are right or wrong, he is not there to judge, he is there to listen, do the best he can and let it go to Council and let them judge to see who is right or wrong. Commissioner Mendoza thanked the staff and said they do a tremendous job. Commissioner Gonzales stated to Environmental Specialist Worthey that there was _' a big difference of agreement all along and the Commission has asked a number of times for an explanation of the MSHCP. Agenda Item No.l Page 48 of 49 PAGE 49 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 3, 2007 Environmental Specialist Worthey stated that there was a lot of things in Castle & Cook's presentation that were not accurate and she didn't have the chance to speak about this. Commissioner Gonzales requested Environmental Specialist Worthey to review what the MSHCP is and how much land is required by the City to give up. Director of Community Development Preisendanz stated that it is a nine (9) acre site and they did their best and now it's time to move on. The City is on the threshold of a lot of development and the City is doing great things and working together with the Commission and respects the Commission and is very excited about what the City has in front of us. He also thanked the staff for their good work and thanked the Commission for their support and will continue to improve and to strive to serve the Commission and the Council. ADJOURNMENT THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8S9 P_M_ ON .llll_Y 3. 2007_ Respectfully Submitted, Kristine Herrington Office Specialist III ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development Agenda Item No.l Page 49 of 49