Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/5/1983 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California December 5, 1983 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioner Master STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission Secretary; PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Helmut Stolpp, Public Works Engineer; Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983 P~1oved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve the minutes of November 21, 1983, as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, h1ason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NE4J HEARINGS: Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to move Items 2 and 3 on the Agenda to be heard before Item 1, in view of the tremensous interest in Item 1 and the amount of time it will take to be heard. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSEfJT: Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1322 - OAK RIDGE PRIVATE SCHOOL A request to operate a private elementary school (grades K-8) with day care before and after school hours, at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Handy Street (Katella Elementary School).„ (NOTE: Negative Declaration. 876 has been prepared for this project.. By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing, Since the applicant did not wish to add anything to the Staff Report, and there was no one to speak against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Two C7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner P~1ason, to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 876. Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Master AlOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1322, for the reasons as stated in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.. Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Master CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1323 - LAURA GARCIA MOTION CARRIED A request to construct a second story room addition to an existing single- family residence in the RM-7 (RCD) zone, on the east side of Parker Street north of Almond Avenue (159 South Parker Street), NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. By consensus of the Commissioners, no presentation was given. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. C. M. Thompson, 625 E, Katella, Orange, representing the applicant, explained that his firm had prepared the plans for the applicant. They have looked over the staff report and had nothing to add, There being no one else to speak for or against the application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Mason, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1323, far the reasons stated in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report, Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Vasquez Commissioners none Commissioner Master MOTION CARRIED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SP 2481, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.#831 Construction of the Loma Street/Lmperia] Highway connection, City of Orange. A proposal to extend Loma Street northerly across Peralta Hills for a distance of 8400 feet to join Imperial Highway in Anaheim Hills. Gary Johnson presented this project to the Commission, first giving some of the background on it, as to how and where it started. He explained that in 1971 Southern California Edison Company proposed to grade and build a Serrano substation, which is above North Mesa Drive at the extension of Loma. He pointed out on the map in front of the Commission just where Planning Commission P~linutes December 5, 1983 Page Three this site is located. He further explained that at that time SCE entered into an agreement with the City of Orange to build Loma as it passed through the limits of their property, which was approximately 300 acres, and the site itself, which was approximately 100 acres. At that time there had been alignment studies done by the county to try to tie down the alignment across the hills. Several proposals were made and when the agreement came to a head the most westerly alignment of that study was incorporated into the agreement. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the alignment shown in this agreement is that shown on the map in front of the Commission. This was traced on the map for them. Since that time the development in Anaheim and Orange has taken place, making that the most feasible alignment for the street. The grading has taken place and the agreement is specific with regard to the alignment. Mr. Johnson then showed a profile of the proposed road, explaining that it proposes 8.8% maximum grades. The road was not built in 1971 because at that time it was not felt that it was needed. Therefore, the agreement was entered into. He said that recently SCE unveiled plans to develop the site for a substation purpose and the staff went to the City Council, feeling that after 12 years of development occurring in the area in Anaheim and East Orange, that now this road should be built. In order to accomplish this purpose the environmental impact of that road had to be considered. There- fore, an EIR was called for. The staff met with SCE and discussed how this would be accomplished. It did not appear to 6e realistic to have them only build a segment of the road and they felt that the full road should be built. Mr. Johnson then explained how this would be financed. He also explained that Donald Cotton Co. was chosen to do the EIR. A scoping meeting was held in Play of this year at Cerro Villa Jr. High School and residents who would be affected by the road were invited. They were shown the plans which are being presented tonight. They indicated many concerns, one of them being the need for alternate alignment. Subsequently, the staff prepared some alternate alignments-which they felt were feasible. He then pointed out Alignments A, B and C on the map, explaining the differences between them. He told the Commission that they then looked at the feasibility of these studies, saying that there is a breakdown in the EIR which draws together a comparison of the alignments. Basically, the proposed alignment would be 8.8% grades on the Orange side of the hill. Alternates A and B have 12% grades. He explained that the problem is that if you take a straight line from Loma, the ridge is high and as you come east it gets higher. The westerly ridge was felt to be the most feasible. He explained that from Dump Hill Road on the south boundary of the project to Big Sky Road would cost $3.3 million for the proposed alignment. Alignment A would cost $3.5 million and Alignment B would be ~5 million. After reviewing these alignments, their preference is still for the proposed alignment, originally stated in t6~e agreement. Mr. Johnson then explained that the night they presented this to the Villa Park City Council they tried to field the questions which came in that evening. The question came up as to why the road is needed and what does it do. The main problem which they are encountering in the East Orange area is the problem of alternate access. Two arterial highways serve the area now and are both overloaded. Chapman Avenue interchange at the Newport Freeway has volumes of 55-60,000 vehicles per day. The Katella Avenue access from the 55 Freeway is 35-40,000 cars/day and they are repeatedly reaching their maximum on Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Four on these streets during peak hours. There is a need for a viable north/ south road to provide an alternate access route for~the east. Mr. Johnson said that they have been in contact with various agencies with whom they are coordinating and who are in attendance tonight - the City of Anaheim, City of Villa Park, SCE and the County of Orange. With regard to the roadway classification - several months ago, in the JEF study, the Commission voted to upgrade this road to a major modified arterial highway. It was decided to postpone final decision on the classi- fication of the road until the EIR is voted upon. Mr. Johnson then explained the road classifications on the other end of the proposed road. Jill Sterrett, representing Donald Cotton Associates, addressed the Com- mission, addressing some of the highlights of the EIR for Loma Street. She explained that their firm was brought into the study by both the City of Orange and SCE to provide a professional EIR. They have had experts in various fields come in to assist them in the various aspects of the EIR. The EIR was prepared in accord with the state and local laws and guidelines. Ms. Sterrett explained that the city had made an extra effort to notify the local residents through a mailing which included a questionnaire which people could fill out. Representatives from her firm also attended the scoping meeting held in May and a second meeting held by the residents themselves. 88 questionnaires were returned. Ms. Sterrett pointed out that the questions and issues raised at these meetings were then addressed in the EIR. 12 major issues were addressed in the EIR and she showed a slide illustrating these issues. She said that two of these issues could be said to have a significant impact, 8 issues which could be considered adverse, but not significant, and 2 issues which could be considered beneficial, The two issues with significant impact are topography and traffic circulation. She explained that if the project is approved a statement of overriding consideration will be needed to say that the Council has considered these significant impacts. She then explained that the reason topography is considered significant is the amount of grading which will be necessary to complete the project (.about 870,000 cu. yds. of material). This substantial grading will react adversely on the land form in the area. She pointed out that the project"s impact on traffic circulation is also considered to be significant, being beneficial because of providing access to existing and impending developments in the area, but with complete development projected to 1995, the traffic volumes at that time are expected to be severe enough to cause extreme congestion during peak periods. She then explained that 8 other issues are expected to have adverse impacts but they are not considered to~be significant or can be mitigated to be below the level of significance, Noise would be the most crucial of these 8 issues and she explained in further detail what type of impact this would have on the area. She pointed out that the noise level would be significantly adverse in 1995 when the traffic level has reached severe proportions. Commissioner Plaster entered the meeting at this point, Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Five ~ Ms. Sterrett stated that they have looked at five different groupings in the area, with regard to these issues, i.e. those to the south, those who are near the proposed road, those who are further away, etc. She explained that generally the mitigation measures involve the construction of noise barriers such as walls, berms, etc. She then went on to point out the biological issue, stating that they found two species of rare plants in the area, but no rare animals. This is con- sidered to be an adverse effect, but because of the few rare species affected, it was not considered significant. Another issue was geology and soils and a number of conditions have been found, including a fault line. This will require special engineering techniques in order to construct the road. However, this will fall well within the cost of the road. She explained that these issues had been brought up during the public input process. Regarding the issue of hydrology, there will be a minute increase in runoff but this will not affect the existing drainage systems. Regarding air quality, emissions on a regular basis will remain the same or even conceivably could be reduced because of the fact that this road provides a shorter access for some of the trips that currently take a longer route around. The localized emissions will be greater but do not approach significant levels. ~• With regard to aesthetics, the grading will alter the form of the hill and the glare from traffic headlights will have an aesthetic impact on the area. However, these impacts can be reduced by grading and the use of berms. She referred to the issue of socio-economics, stating that the road does permit growth of development in the area, but the effect is considered indirect since this new development is already planned or has been approved for the area. She pointed out that there is a limited area which is SCE property which is not currently planned for development, but that would require a General Plan Amendment in order to develop that area. Ms. Sterrett brought up that there was considerable concern by the public that land values might be,affected and, in general, they have concurred that this is possible,.-but it is something that they have no way of quantifying, Regarding cultural resources, no archeaological or biological historical artifacts were identified by the consultant. Possible palentological exist, but they couldn't be identified. Ms. Sterrett then brought up the two issues. which would. be beneficial from the project - public services and improved access. She pointed out that the road would provide police and fire protection to a greater degree. Also land use would be improved because of greater access to the area, She said that one of the concerns brought up by the public is that two other alignments were considered by the EIR. Also four other alternatives were considered - these include the "no project"' alternative, which is required under state guidelines. This would basically consideres no development of the road through this area. The second alternative would be increased and decreased road sizes, a third alternative would be one of the alternate alignments, and fourth, the use of a tunnel. None of the alternatives are Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Six clearly preferred over the proposed alternative. They all have advantages and disadvantages. J Ms. Sterrett explained that only three comments were received during the 45 days review period. The first comments was from SCE with a request for clarification, the second comment came from the City of Villa Park, raising questions about alternative alignments; and the third comments was from the state Office of Planning and Research. This body distributes the EIR to other state agencies. Herman Basmacyan, traffic consultant, addressed the Commission, stating that he would concentrate on the impacts of proposed construction as far as the circulation system is concerned. He discussed impacts of a short term nature as opposed to the long term impacts. Looking at the immediate impacts, or short term impacts, for the analysis they made a simplifying assumption that this particular facility could be constructed basically overnight and that there would be no development in the area and that no other roadway improvements would be made. Under these conditions, they estimate that Loma would carry approximately 7,000 vehicles per day. Motorists using this segment would be residents of East Orange and Villa Park, who would be going to the northeast,In lieu of traveling the 55 Freeway and accessing it off one of the surface streets, they could have the alternative of Loma, accessing at Imperial Highway. Conversely, citizens of Anaheim would use the street going the other way. They are not expecting that there would be any diversion of traffic off of the freeways because the distance along the 91 and 55 Freeways is shorter than the proposed alignment of Loma. Therefore, they do not expect this to happen. He explained that they believe the magnitude of this will be very small. Under future conditions, the traffic estimates are based on the traffic modeling and estimates made by the Orange County Environmental Agency. Mr. Basmacyan explained that they are looking at the full .development of the county and the cities' general plans, the full development of the arterial systems and the transportation facilities in the area. He then explained that with that condition the traffic volumes on Loma would reach 30,000 levels. On some portions, traffic would be in excess of 40,000. He pointed out that the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways at this point indicates Loma to be a secondary arterial. They believe a primary arterial or 4-lane divided highway would be more appropriate. This would bring the estimated traffic into much closer balance with the roadway capacity that would be provided. He also pointed out that there would b.e intersection improvements necessary and certainly overall traffic circulation in the area would need to be brought to the master plan classification. He felt that in the long term it is important to look at what would happen if Loma were not constructed. The effects would show on Villa Park Road where they would estimate that the traffic volume would be reduced by 6,000 vehicles per day. Even with that reduction Villa Park Road would experience congestion. Mr. Basmacyan pointed out that this particular facility would serve local traffic. The county has made certain other studies since the EIR was done which point out that the traffic would be traffic from the immediate. surrounding area. Therefore, if Loma were not constructed and development went as planned, these residents would have to take circuitous routes and incur higher amounts of mileage. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Seven ~ Stewart Simons, 5501 Crater Lake, Orange, representing R.O.A.R., which is a non-profit corporation in the state of California, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project. He explained that R.O.A.R. is a loosely knit organization consisting of some 2000 residents of the City of Orange, Anaheim Hills, the unincorporated area or Orange Park Acres and Villa Park. He briefly went into the background of the organization and what they are trying to accomplish, explaining what the goals of the organization are. He said that their first objective is to select an alternative to the Loma road, which considers local consideration requirements for the City of Orange, Anaheim, Villa Park, Tustin and the unincorporated areas. He ex- plained that they had specifically designed this objective to take a good solid look at not only what the City of Orange needs, but also the needs of the neighboring cities, as well. He said that they have members on their committee who have expertise in the areas needed to accomplish this objective. He then went on to explain their second objective, which is to consider timing in order to avoid traffic disasters. They felt that part of the problem with this particular project analysis is that it looks at it in a vacuum, It does not look at the impact of the surrounding areas and it does not look too well at the timing aspect. Mr. Simons stated that their intent is to focus on local requirements rather than county and state requirements,. They do not question that Orange County needs transportation enhancements. However, it needs them not to cause disaster in the local communities. Therefore, they are recommending that the City of Orange look at things like the Eastern Transportation Corridor, Weir Canyon, and the project to enhance Tustin Avenue, plus looking at the expansion of the existing freeways, rather than looking at a solution that ends up ruining local neighborhoods. They would like to see some kind of a compromise selected that will be less disastrous than the 42,000 cars per day which are recommended, Mr.. Simons said that they realize they must be cooperative, but want to go about this with some common sense, The fif th element is to cooperate with the local government's needs to provide ingress and access to the future development in the hills. He explained that this group is not anti-development. They understand the needs of the city to develop and grow.. They would like to see East Orange develop well and not have a blight on their area. Mr. Simons then explained that the sixth element would be to preserve to the greatest extent possible the rural atmosphere of their neighborhoods., He explained that several members of the executive committee would address the Commission on several aspects of this proposed project from an expert point of view, Dick 4lright, 19081 Valley Drive, Villa Park, addressed the Corunission, explaining first that he felt that most of the residents of Villa Park feel that they share residence with the City of Orange with regard to safety issues. He said that he has had 30 years of .experience in the insurance business, working with claims in the community. He pointed out two general areas which he wished to cover: (1) financial impact on the Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Eight ~ community of Orange; and (2) aspects of safety with regard to the citizens of the communities which are affected. He said that he has devoted his activity mostly to claims of residents in the local area and he pointed out that municipalities are now being included quite regularly in litigation brought by citizens. He brought up an example of a recent suit brought by an individual against city, county and state. He pointed out other examples of a similar nature, explaining that cities are being sued more and more of ten. He pointed out that even so called acts of God are considered fair bait for litigation against cities. Mr. Wright then went into the recent accident on Nohl Ranch Road where a man was killed in a 21 car pile up. The concern in that area is the 8% grade on Nohl Ranch Road. Fle pointed out other articles in the newspapers which allude to measures attempted to alleviate trucks driving that 8% grade in that area. He explained that he brought this up in order to point out that this tragic accident will probably result in litigation against the city and this involves an 8% grade on a road. He said that the state of California has a maximum grade of 6%, i.e. the Grapevine on Highway 99. He also pointed out that the gravel pits and other concerns of truck acivity are on the northern end of the proposed road and that road will have utiliza- tion by heavy trucks and contractors, despite the difficulty of controlling a truck on that steep grade of a road, Mr. Wright felt that the city is perhaps exposing itself to future liability of the consequences of building a road with such a steep grade. He also felt that the city should consider what legal ramifications could grow out of this proposal On the northerly part of this roadway, where a 12% grade is proposed, there are three schools. He could envision tragic problems in this area with a 12% grade there. He pointed out that the residents who live in the area and have to put up with. the incredible congestion on the 91 and 55 Freeways know that there will most probably be a flood of traffic on this proposed road if it is built. This will be to the disadvantage of those residents in the area, particularly with regard to safety. He explained that this proposed road will have a capacity of 54,000 cars, which is twice the capacity of Chapman. Dumping the traffic into only three roadways will create a real problem. How will Orange deal with the enormous increase in traffic? He felt that if bJeir Canyon or the Eastern Corridor were built before this extension goes through, they would take much of the burden of the traffic from 'the street. But if this street is built first, it will give Orange an insoluble traffic problem. Ed Meece, 5502 E. Crater Lake, Orange, addressed the Commission with regard to change of life styles, pollution and noise. He explained that he is the President of the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association and on the executive committee of R,O,A.R, He pointed out that the community in the east end of Orange is very beautiful and quiet, with relatively clean air and a rural atmosphere, The Loma connection will result in several problems. He did not think that a traffic expert had traveled the freeways in the morning and evening congestion, since they could not make the comments they had made if they did. Putting this arterial highway in will give the people an alternate route to travel and avoid the congestion on the freeways With regard to noise, trucks and cars will make a great impact in the area with an 8-12% grade. The people in the Loma area now have a noise impact Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Nine even with 6 f t. walls and berms to protect them from the noise impact. Mr. P1eece pointed out that the pollution will increase dramatically. With regard to speed and safety, he said that the grades on these hills and cars coming down, there will be a tremendous increase in speed coming down the hills into established communities. This will be a far greater grade than Nohl Ranch Road. He then addressed statements in the EIR, pointing out .that pollution does not move out of canyons and foothills as it does on flat land. The EIR states that pollution will be greatly increased because of the increase in traffic. He said that if Orange planned for this road to be built many years ago, why did they allow expensive homes to be built in this area? Originally, no homeowner in that area was notified that a major highway would be coming into the area. He felt that the county and the city had put the cart before the horse. A 6-lane highway should have been placed in that area first, before development came in. Now they wish to .change dramatically a lovely, rural area. If this road goes through, he predicted that there will be a new mayor and new City Council in the City of Orange. They feel that the City Council is more interested in the commuters from other communities going through this city than the citizens of Orange, Mr. Meece pointed out that the EIR states the need for traffic signals at several intersections along Loma. He said that they are not against development in Anaheim Hills. That is progress. But a major highway that will be used as a short cut will bring disaster for many aspects. He stated that the citizens in the east area of Orange are prepared personally and financially to fight the extension of Loma through the courts, if necessary. Linda Iger, 10012 6Jildwood, Villa Park, addressed the Commission on the subject of schools and safety. She asked the Commission to examine Taf t Avenue. In Villa Park it is a two-lane street with a median at some points. It is a locally traveled street with no sidewalks, no street lights and no curbs. She spoke on behalf of the 3,000 children who live in Villa Park and must use Taft to get to school. The proposed road will have 42,000 cars per day traveling on it, which will come down an 8% grade and dump into Taf t. Avenue, She pointed out that during peak traffic hours about 8,000 cars per day will travel on Loma and turn off onto Taf t. This is as much as Katella receives during peak hours, This will occur during hours when children are walking and riding bikes to school, ~.. Mrs, Iger pointed out that every child in Villa Park must travel Taft to go to school, She also explained that 16 year old drivers will also go out onto Taft Avenue as inexperienced drivers. The principal of Villa Park High School is absolutely against the Loma extension. She pointed out that Villa Park Elementary, Cerro Villa Jr, High and Villa Park High Schools were all there before the Master Plan. She also pointed out that there are 470 Orange children who attend Linda Vista and will have to cross Loma on their way to and from school. She asked on behalf of all of the children in Orange, Villa Park and Anaheim that the Commission vote "no" on the Loma Street extension. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Ten `, Lou Floodman, 5511 Crest de Ville, Orange, addressed the Commission, representing the Crest de Ville Homeowners' Association. She addressed air quality, loss of property value, loss of beauty of the area, noise, and loss of rural quality. She read from the EIR with regard to noise and pollution, wherein it stated the adverse effects which would occur. She also spoke to the problem of getting in and out of their area. She explained that they area gated community and if the road goes through it will create a hazardous situation in entering and leaving their community. She mentioned traffic figures, pointing out that with the increase of traffic, they would never be able to turn left onto Loma. Bill Baker, 19211 Park Circle, Villa Park, addressed the Commission on the subject of decreased property values. He stated that he is an attorney specializing in real estate law and he has made a telephone poll of his clients in order to determine from them in their experience what the im- pact of having a residential community pre-existing the major primary road coming in would be. He was told that the minimum depreciation of value for residences immediately adjacent to the proposed road would be 20% and the worst would be 50 %. The devaluation of their homes is an emotional subject. This is not an act of God, it is a controlled act and they feel there are other viable alternatives. He felt that the biggest and strongest argument against this proposed alignment is devaluation of ~ property values. He pointed out that in the Master Plan the street is recorded as a secondary road. The EIR ref erence to it is a major arterial. He said he could live with a secondary two-lane road, but not a major highway. PJowhere in the EIR is there a statement as to who made the decision to upgrade this road to a major arterial. h1r. Baker felt that the EIR does not directly respond to the concerns of the homeowners who will be directly impacted. He pointed out that one of the staff stated that the change of life style of the homeowners would be abated by berms and walls. That takes care of future development, but what about those who live there now. P•1r. Baker pointed out that this road is anticipated to be a Class F road by 1995. This is unacceptab le now and will be then. If the intention of this roadway is to aid the residents of Orange to get from the East Orange area to the Newport Freeway, then why not leave it two lanes or push for the Eastern Corridor or heir Canyon Road? It is much better to do planning in undeveloped areas than to impact those already liv ing in a beautiful community. He then presented six general comments and 16 specific comments with regard to the EIR, asking that the Commission respond to them in writing 30 days prior to the City Council meeting in this regard, Mary Beth Felsun, 5018 E. Teton, Orange, addressed the Commission, pointing out that this road has been the major topic of conversation in her neighbor- hood since May. She wanted the Commission to realize how wide spread the interest and concern is about the road. The citizens are very angry that the city has created this crisis, planning to place a major road through a residential area. She wondered how the City of Orange is planning their neighborhoods, pointing out that if this road was in the Master Plan 20 years Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Eleven ago and was developed at that time, there would have been no impact. But today, with all of the development in that area, it will be a disaster. By their decisions in the past, the city has abrogated any right to build this road. As a resident of the City of Orange, she demanded that the Commission act to the needs of the citizens of Orange. The citizens depend on the Commission to make the proper decisions with regard to their needs and welfare. If this road is approved as planned, the citizens will support and and all further action to defeat it. Michael Colville, 578 Paseo Carmel, Anaheim, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt that the EIR is a lot of pussyfooting and double talk. When R.O.A.R. asked why this road must be built they were told it must go through because it is part of the Master Plan. He pointed out that the Master Plan is not the law or one of the commandments. Now they are being told that the justification is to serve the needs of the local citizens. This is a joke and a farce. They do not need a six-lane highway to go from one side of the hill to the other. The Master Plan originated 20 to 30 years ago and the road was planned in an undeveloped area. Now the area is developed and the road is unfeasible. Mr. Colville addressed the EIR, referring to the statement made that the EIR received three inquiries. He felt that this had to be an untrue statement. He was angry because of the what he believed to be the double talk in the EIR. He expressed deep concern over what he saw as a lack of concern and disregard for the safety of the citizens. He explained how bad the Nohl Ranch Rd./Imperial intersection is and foresees tragic results from a road such as this. Lee Barbour, 19172 Cerro Villa Dr., Villa Park, addressed the Commission, explaining that he has been a resident of this area for the past 20 years, is a licensed professional engineer and licensed contractor, working with Fluor Corporation. He stated that they are not opposed to growth in this area, but they do not feel that a tie-in through to Imperial is necessary for the citizens of .Orange. He realized that this does not solve the county's Master Plan problem. He explained that they had talked to the traffic people in the County of Orange, who were very helpful. They said that they use a checker board method in developing roads in the county. This road is just one of the lines in the checker board. He pointed out on the map where there are 4-6 lane highways and 4-lane highways which could be used for north-south arterials. They suggest that the most logical road for the Imperial tie-in is Via Escola, which is new and on the existing maps. He pointed this out on the map before the Commissioners, stating that Via Escola is also on the Master Plan and is already under development. This is the most desirable alternative for the Anaheim Hills residents to move to the north and south. This road will be developed ~ further to the east in the future. Mr. Barbour explained that they also suggest that Serrano Avenue be expanded to be completed between East Orange and Anaheim Hills. That expansion is also on the Master Plan and there have been discussions in this regard with Texaco Company. This is an undeveloped area an d would be beneficial to all parties concerned. Via Escola would tie into that same area. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Twelve Mr. Barbour also referred the Commission to a letter from the Villa Park engineer which pointed out deficiencies in the EIR, ref erring to several areas. They challenge the accuracy and completeness of the EIR, feeling it should be studied more completely. This is not in the best interests of Orange and will not serve their needs. Mr. Simons again addressed the Commission, asking all those in opposition to this proposal to stand. Everyone in the Council chambers stood. (The entire chamber was full, with standing room only.) He then summarized what had been said by the various speakers. 1. Separate the issue of arterial roads from the local transportation system. Solve the city and county problems realistically. They do not need arterials. 2. Loma plan did not get started 8-10 years ago. It has been on the Master Plan for 20 years and is a badly out-of-date concept. 3. Quality development. They suggest that the hillside areas be intelligently developed. It is important that the city realize that they have a gem in eastern Orange. 4. Avoid the image of being totally pro-development. The City of Orange ought to take a little more unbiased position and show that they are willing to compromise. 5. Listen to the citizens of Orange and work with them. They have attempted to work with the city for six months. Staff is obstinate and refuses to work with the citizens. He then read a memo from the Public Works staff to Mayor Perez in this regard. 6. He found serious problems with the EIR. They do not talk about what happens to surrounding streets, etc. This EIR has serious shortcomings and further study needs to be done. The City of Villa Park wrote to Gary Johnson, stating that the EIR has serious shortcomings. 7. Consider alternative plans. Their recommendation is to support the area south of the SCE easement by Loma and a71 of the streets that branch off of Loma and the construction of Serrano. They feel these are intelligent things to do and that Loma should be extended into the hills to provide adequate development into those areas, They also feel that the four streets on the north side of that easement, namely Imperial, Via Escola, Meats, Nohl Ranch Road, and all of the other surrounding streets in that area be used to su pport the north end of that land development, 100% of that land can be developed and the transportation needs cah be met, He felt that the issues should be separated. Focus on local transportation and forget the arterial highway. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Thirteen Mr. Simons pointed out that they have expressed the willingness to work with the city to find alternatives and will continue to do so. They ask that the Commission vote on the issue tonight. Do not skirt the issue, do not continue the hearing. Vote now, tonight. Chairman Hart pointed out that the questions on the EIR had been presented for response within 30 days of the City Council meeting. If they respond to them, they cannot vote tonight. The answer was that if they vote "no" tonight, there would be no need to answer those questions. Virginia Martin, 5321 Playano, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that she has been a resident of Orange for 20 years. She lives on the corner of Taft and Loma and does not feel that she lives in a quiet area. She explained some of the accidents which have occurred in k~er area. She does not feel that her children will have a chance if this road goes through. This plan will help no .one and what it will cost the citizens of Orange is the bottom line. Tom Malloy, 9292 Hunting Circle, Villa Park, addressed the Commission, referring to the installation of the Diemer line, which is the MWD feeder which came through the back almost parallel to the proposed Loma extension. He explained that his property backs up to a natural drain and during the last three years, since the completion of the Diemer line, the water behind his home has tripled. His next door neighbor has lost his tennis court and he has spent much money to protect his wall and property. He did not think that anyone who is planning this road could give him assurance that there will be less water if the road goes through. He cannot get any assistance from the city because it is not a city maintained drain. Tom Hill, 5709 Bryce, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he is a new resident to Orange, having resided here three weeks. He explained that he had moved from Laguna Niguel, overlooking the 6-lane San Diego Freeway. He pointed out that the noise and air pollution in that area is terrible and the property values in Laguna Niguel have dropped tremendously because of this. You cannot help but have a tremendous negative financial impact on property if that is the type of highway to be allowed through a residential community. Allan Swenson, 1978 Mammoth, Orange, addressed the Commission, asking who paid for the EIR. Mr. Johnson explained that this was a joint EIR between SCE and the City of Orange. They will each pay their proportionate share. Mr. Swenson said, as a developer hiring such firms, he wondered where their loyalties going to be, Another resident of Villa Park addressed the Commission, explaining that when they purchased their house, which backs up to Taft, they wondered how much noise there would be. They spent two hours in the back yard listening to the noise and it was acceptable. When the bridge washed out on Katella the noise became unacceptable. By putting this road in, they are proposing to make this noise permanently unacceptable. He pointed out that traffic engineers were probably used to estimating traffic on the 55 and 91 Freeways and he felt that perhaps their estimates are not accurate. He fel t that probably their estimates for traffic on Loma would be double what is anticipated. Because this is on the Master Plan does not make it the law., Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Fourteen ~. Jack Parker, 19461 Mesa Drive, Villa Park, addressed the Commission stating that he owns property at 1431 Chapman Avenue, where he practices law. He pointed out that other than a casual comment, it has not been discussed that the city has an agreement with SCE that was extracted at the time the sub- station was approved. He thought that it was interesting that of the three alternatives shown on the map, the recommended alternative supported by staff is the one shown on the agreement with SCE. The conclusion seems to be that the City of Orange bears the least cost of the road, shifting the cost of the road to SCE. He had serious doubts about the legality of the agreement between the city and SCE, saying that he would like to see this subject addressed by city legal staff as to the validity of that agreement. He thought, with the high figures mentioned here tonight, that this is an un- reasonable burden for utility customers to bear for a road where the need is questionable. He pointed out that the road makes a grotesque swing to the west and comes very close to his property. He met with Mr. Johnson in the 1970s and was told at that time that there was no precise plan for the road, but it would generally swing up through SCE property. With that in mind, he designed his home, which has a value of 2 million dollars. He designed it with a the roof, low to the ground, below the .road level, in order to minimize the noise. The north face of the house, which he did not think would be impacted by the road, is mostly glass. When he saw the stakes being placed, he could not believe how far west they were coming. He said he could see the stakes on the ridge from his kitchen window and the lights from the cars traveling on the road will first strike the master bedroom, then the kitchen and then his living room with floor to ceiling glass. He is now in a position that his house will be unsaleable because of the anticipation of where the road will'go. He did not think it is fair for him to bear the burden of the utility owner to build the road and then bear the burden of wiping out his property worth. Bill Sherry, 9261 Tripp Circle, Villa Park, addressed the Commission, stating that he is a doctor and chose to locate professionally in this area. It is amazing to him that they are contemplating building this road and not pro- viding quality living area for small business people. Burt Schlesinger, 1884 N. Carlsbad, Orange, addressed the Commission, explaining that his back yard butts up to Loma. He is opposed to the Loma extension and does not feel that the needs of the citizens will be served. If Loma is upgraded to a major arterial, he has a personal concern with regard to traffic. He has three young children and is very concerned as a father. He is also concerned with regard to noise. Bedros Enfiedjian, of the County Transportation Division, then addressed the Commission. Commissioner Vasquez asked on whose behalf he was here this evening and Mr. Enfiedjian responded that the County gets involved with any aspect of the arterial system which is being discussed in the cities and he represented the county. He stated that the county Master Plan was originally adopted in 1956 and Loma has been on the Master Plan for 20 years, since 1963. He referred to a map which showed the arterials in the county, with lines in red denoting the arterials which have been deleted because of pressure from the local citizens. He pointed out that if all of the roads which have been requested to be deleted are deleted there will be no roads to travel on. The issue here is whether or not they Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Fifteen can delete roads from the Master Plan and still encourage growth and development. He stated that the county has spent many dollars to prepare a report for R.O.A.R. They are talking about a secondary road of four lanes with regard to Loma. It will not be a six-lane freeway. Mr. Enfiedjian then pointed out the areas which are scheduled for development, plus that which is already developed, explaining that the cars in those developed areas must use the road to get out of their area. Approximately 40,000 new residents will be coming into this area in the future. Of the trips on Loma, 60 are directly attributable to the area in Peralta Hills. 20% in the future development area will travel Loma. This means that 80% of the traffic on Loma will be local. Then he went on to explain where the other 20% of the traffic comes from. He then addressed 4Jeir Canyon, stating that there is no correlation with or without Loma. He stressed that the reason for high projections of traffic on Loma is because other roads have been deleted from the Master Plan, at the request of local citizens. Mr. Enfiedjian pointed out that the county has gone to considerable expense to analyze what has happened at this time in that area trafficwise. He then explained his various figures, which were then passed out to the Commission. He explained that essentially what R.O.A.R. is asking the Commission to do is to bypass Villa Park and impact Anaheim Hills and areas of Orange. He pointed out that far more arterials will be impacted if the road does not go through than if it goes through. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that in the analysis it indicates that 85% of the traffic on the Imperial-Loma link will be generated by residents in the R.O.A.R. area. The remaining would be from Brea, Anaheim and surrounding areas. He wondered why people would want to go over that ridge and get on the 91 Freeway. Mr. Enfiedjian explained that there is tremendous employ- ment in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda. Anahsim has a number of major shopping centers which undoubtedly will draw people to from this side of the ridge. Their computer printouts show that 85% of the trips will be attributable to the R.O.A.R. area residents. He also pointed out that the 55 Freeway is expected to be widened within the next several years, adding another lane of traffic, which is badly needed. He felt that they are talking about a sensible compromise. There is a need for a road to serve the residents. All of the other roads have been deleted with the under- standing between the cities and the county that Loma is going to serve the area as an arterial. Commissioner Vasquez questioned that 85% of the traffic will originate from this area. On-the other hand, if people will not use this road as an alternative to the 91 Freeway, are we building a 32 million dollar road to accommodate the poeple of the R.O.A.R. area? Mr. Enfiedjian explained that this will accommodate not only existing people but the project developments going in that area. There was further discussion between Commissioner Vasquez and Mr. Enfiedjian with regard to figures mentioned in the report. Commissioner Mason wondered if this is needed for the people in this area what areas are the people going into now. 4~hat streets are they traveling now? Mr. Enfiedjian answered that the existing network includes Nohl Ranch Road, Meats, Taft and Villa Park Road. There are no north/south roads and people must float to get to the 91 Freeway. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Sixteen She wondered if these streets will be more or less impacted. Will they be less impacted by construction on Loma. After further discussion among the Commissioners and comments from the audience, ~1r. Simons, Chairman of R.O.A.R. asked that he be allowed to read into the record that the computer analysis mentioned by Mr.Enfiedjian was never received by R.O.A.R. A letter from them requesting information was never responded to. The only way they heard about this hearing was from a member of staff who refused to state their position. He then asked for a copy of the staff report. Mr. Enfiedjian told the Commission that they had met with R.O.A.R, members and told them that they would look into the matter, A letter was supposedly sent to the Board of Supervisors with his name at the bottom of the letter as having received a copy. He never received a copy of this letter to analyze and he was kept completely in the dark. He never received any letters from R.O.A.R. They then prepared the analysis and presented it to the Commission. John Manley, 19112 S. Mesa, Villa Park, addressed the Commission, asking Mr. Enfiedjian about his statement that all of the communities in the area made an agreement to cancel other north/south arterials with the agreement that Loma extension would be built. He did not believe this ~° s to temen t. Mr. Enfiedjian stated that he has copies of agreements which state this point, These are agreements which have been reached and EIRs have been done in this regard, Virginia Martin again addressed the Commission, stating that she does math modeling and simulation for the Navy. She said she realizes how much parameters change during simulation. 41hat comes out of the computer is not necessary fact. She felt that an outside analysis should 6e done by an independent company. Mary Beth Felsun again addressed the Commission, stating that if the county wanted the road which is being described here where were they when her community was planned? Her community is only five years old. Why didn"t they bring this up when the community was planned? Mr. Enfiedjian responded that the county is not proposing the road, nor constructing it, He pointed out that roads don't get built until development takes place. Jill Sterrett again addressed the Commission, responding to the comments of the public by clarifying the independence of the consultant. She pointed out that they are paid by SCE and the City of Orange, .This is a typical procedure and their reputation is based on providing an unbiased analysis. She explained that it is important to divide the significant impacts from those less significant, Noise, air pollution, safety of the children are all adverse impacts that should be considered when deciding to approve this road, She also pointed out that land form and traffic impacts on a long term basis are significant impacts. Collectively these adverse impacts could be con- sidered a change in the quality of life in this area. If the road goes Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Seventeen through the quality would change from rural to semi-urban. Ms. Sterrett then began to answer the questions brought up by the public. Regarding letters received from R.O.A.R., they have been included in the EIR record. They were not answered, however. Regarding safety on steep grades, she thought this should be referred to the city staff. Steep grades with regard to noise. She thought this was specifically mentioned in the EIR. Regarding schools and effects on children going to and from school - this was addressed briefly in the EIR. Some of the measures recommended are school crossing guards, crossing at signalized intersections, etc. Mr. Johnson addressed the safety aspects of steep grades on Loma, pointing out that unfortunately the design standards built into roads do not take into consideration faulty brakes, drunk drivers., etc. Any road, be it a road with 2%, 5% or 10% grade, has a potential for some type of accident, like the one on Nohl Ranch Road recently. 4ie are not going to stop building roads because of one truck accident, even though it was a terrible thing. Regarding permanent visual impact and noise, Ms, Sterrett said that clearly noise impacts will be changed in the area from rural to more urbanized. They looked particularly at Crest de Ville and it was decided that the noise level would not be considered significant. Regarding reduction in property value, she explained that the EIR indicates that there would be an adverse effect on property values, She asked that Mr. Baker give his findings to her and they could be incorporated into the report before the City Council meeting. Regarding planning policies which have occurred in the past, resulting in residences being so near proposed roads, she did not have a response. for this question, Regarding the feeling that the Master Plan is not law, questioning where the Master Plan started, she said that the Master Plan is still applicable even 20 years later, This is the basis for city process. There might be reasons for a plan to be changed and this is something which the Commission and the Council should consider. This is a rational planning process and courts have upheld this. Regarding various alternatives, Ms. Sterrett pointed out that the county has made a fairly complete response to the primary alternative which has been proposed by R,O.A.R, She commented on statements made by the R.O,A,R, chairman and then went onto comment on various statements made by other people in the audience. Mr. Johnson commented on the comments with regard to the bridge on Katella being washed out and the effect on traffic in other areas, stating that the bridge has existed as a culvert since 1970 when the road was installed, The main reason why the road is washed out is that the cost of a bridge facility for that area would be considerable in order to put pilings in to make the bridge more stable. The cost would be around 5 million dollars. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Eighteen Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification regarding the positive of the project, i.e. fire and police access. Since Anaheim serves one side and Orange and the county serves the other side, what is the need for this road? The answer was that virtually all of the cities have mutual services agreements. Therefore, in this instance, Anaheim would assist Orange and Orange would assist Anaheim. Thus the road is needed to cross back and forth. Commissioner Vasquez pointed out that this has happened very rarely. Mr. Basmacyan then addressed the classification of the road and the issue of 4 and 6 lanes. He clarified this issue, pointing out that in the EIR the statement is made that initially the road should be constructed as a two-lane road and, in response to development and traffic growth, they should consider increasing the size of the road. In discussing future traffic valume, they started with the premise that the road would be a secondary arterial - a 4-lane undivided road, even though the City of Orange indicates a modified major in between Santiago and Serrano. The county indicates a 4-lane secondary arterial. He went on to explain that as they analyzed the future traffic development, they found that a secondary would not be sufficient to handle tremendous traffic loads. Therefore, they suggested that the status should be upgraded to a modified major with some special treatment at the lower end of the road. A primary arterial as a 4-lane divided road. Within the right-of-way for a primary road it is possible for short stretches to stripe for 6 lanes. This increases the capacity for that stretch of roadway. The lanes are slightly narrower in that case. There would be no parking in that area. Another issue to be addressed was where the traffic is coming from and going to. Mr. Basmacyan said that he earlier stated that he did not expect that traffic would be leaving the 91 Freeway, traveling on arterials and then finding its way to the 55 Freeway. The county's analysis conformed with his statement that 85% of the traffic on Loma would-have at least one end of their trips in the R.O.A,R. area. He explained how he came to this conclusion. Regarding the statement of 54,000 cars per day, Mr. Basmacyan explained that a 4-lane arterial would have a capacity of 30,000 to 33,000 cars per day. Regarding the comment about traffic signals being required at various intersections, this statement is contained in the EIR and is certainly true. Mr. Basmacyan then spoke to the statements made with regard to the gated community and access on Loma. He said that he wished to defer response to that comment until he had a chance to study it further, Regarding the gaestion asking why a two lane facility was dismissed, he explained that it was not dismissed. Mr. 6asmacyan felt that the EIR has made an attempt to evaluate the impacts with regard to surrounding streets in re the traffic effects when the Santiago bridge is washed out. Certainly there is a detour at that time, However, he felt that this is not a traffic problem, but rather a structural problem, He also spoke to the southbound left turns to Serrano, stating that this intersection would have to be designed to accommodate both pedestrian and automobile traffic in the area. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Nineteen ~,, Mrs. Iger stated that the consultants are here to defend the paper which they have written. The county representative is here to defend the 15% of the people who will come through the City of Orange. The majority do not want this road. They are asking for the help of the Commission because they do not want this road. They get to the places they need to go without it and they do not need the Loma extension. P1ary Beth Felsen pointed out that it has been mentioned that there is a need to build this road to balance the traffic on other streets. However, these are not 4 or n lane roads. 61hat she is hearing is that this road will have to become a major highway. She recommended that the Planning Commission is agreeing to build a major 6-lane highway. Mr. Enfiedjian stated that he was not here as a proponent or opponent of the road. His job is to tell the public what happens if they do this or that. He is showing the impacts and what is needed in the area. It is the decision of the Commission and Council to decide whether the road is built. Virginia hlartin again addressed the Commission, asking three questions. She said that she questioned the statement that they do not expect traffic to be diverted from the freeways onto Loma. She explained that she goes down to the freeway on Katella and if it looks bad on the freeway, she diverts onto Tustin. She gets off of the freeways if there is an alternate road that flows better. She said that she lives on Taft and Loma and there is not room enough for a six-lane highway behind her home. She wondered if she should sell her home now. She also asked the Commission to think of what they are doing to the citizens of Orange. She did not feel that this is realistic. It is inconsistent thinking and she will take the issue to the voters of Orange. Ken Henderson, 18822 Derek Drive, Villa Park, addressed the Commission, stating that he is terrified far all of the children who must cross Taf t to get to school, He said that he runs a fleet of 40 tractor semi-trailers out of Santa Ana off Dyer and the Newport Freeway. The most effective way to set up a truck to go over the Grapevine is to put a brake in the engine for a safety factor, called a Jacob brake. This is a very noisy situation. A rig of this type has a 13 speed transmission and to go up the 3% grade will be a noisy process, Afichael Flynn, 6209 Teton, Orange, addressed the Commission, questioning the validity of the EIR, which says that the quality of the air, safety of children, noise impact are less significant than a notch in the hillside. Another resident of the area addressed the Commission, stating that it seemed to him there has been a tremendous precedent set for public challenges by local citizens- to their city with regard to noise problems and he used as an example the citizens of Newport Beach fighting the noise impact of John Wayne Airport, He pointed out from a governmental viewpoint that with the potential of trucks going up that hill, he would think there is a real potential for unhappy citizens to possibly file a lawsuit aginst the cities of Orange and Anaheim in this matter. Planning Commission P•linutes December 5, 1983 Page Twenty Lyle Wade, 6305 Mabury, Orange, addressed the Commission, stating that he works in Santa Ana, along a~ith many other people. Many of his fellow employees live in Riverside and look for other viable ways to get home other than the congested freeway. He did not want people from other counties going through his neighborhood to get home. Jill Sterrett again addressed the Commission, stating that she thought that in Orange, as in other cities, the Planning Commission is not the final authority to certify the EIR or approve the project. It is still possible for the Commission to make a decision tonight and pass a recommendation along to the City Council. She pointed out that there are two points being considered at this time - one is certification of the EIR and the second is the project itself. Commissioner Master stated that the record should show that all comments and responses made this evening become part of the EIR and this is passed on to the City Council. Commissioner Greek thought that Loma between Taft and the creek is at its ultimate width now. It is not correct that houses would be condemned in Mrs. Martin's area. Mr. Johnson agreed with this statement. Commissioner Master asked if there is a 100 ft. width in that area and was told by Mr. Johnson that he thought there was 90 feet, including two horse trails, one of which would probably be converted to a right-of-way. He said that he was confused as to the statements with regard to six lanes, since the EIR did not specifically state six lanes. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing, Commissioner Vasquez commented that he appreciated the fine articulation of comments and responses this evening. He did take offense at the statement that the Commission did not give a damn for the children. He said that he has a four-year old, lives in the community and has been here for many years. This Commission is very committed to the community and cares what happens here. Commissioner Greek stated that generally he is in favor of roads. He has seen the plans work. He has also seen the alternatives presented tonight. He felt that it is unfair to come to a meeting and be besieged with all kinds of information from many groups and then be told to vate. The Com- mission needs time to digest all of the information given here and he felt that at this point he would have to abstain from voting. He felt that there is a need for further study of the situation before a vote could be taken, Chairman Hart felt that the Commission would be shortchanging the people if they made a decision tonight, Commissioner Vasquez said that what they have seen this evening is a continuation of a problem that has affected all of Orange County and that is a feeling that we have made some very grave errors in the area of , Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 1983 Page Twenty-One transportation and now we must pay for these mistakes. If the Commission ~~ is irresponsible by making a decision tonight, that is wrong also. He felt that they owe it to the people who come 30-40 years from now to deal with the alternatives and problems before the Commission. He felt per- sonally concerned when a community must be impacted at this level to accommodate 15% of the people who go through this community. He said that he was hard pressed to believe that the other developments being proposed will not affect this decision. The problem is that we develop first and then ask fora road. Commissioner Master asked for an in depth report from staff with regard to a six-lane highway. in that area. Moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Greek, to adjourn Construction Project SP 2481, Draft Environmental Impact Report 831 to a study session on Wednesday, January 4, 1984 and then to a regular general meeting on Monday, January lb, 1984. AYES: Commissioners Hart, Greek, Mason, Master, Vasquez NOES: Commissioners none ABSEPJT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Mr. Simons thanked Commissioner Vasquez for his comments in showing the great balance and responsiveness in this matter. He clarified that there have been some sharp comments this evening, They have not been directed at the Commission, but at some members of staff. Commissioner Master pointed out that the 15% mentioned is not justification for this road. Commissioner Vasquez pointed of the users of the proposed from one side of the hill to the people who represent tha road, have concerns about it 15% who would go through. out that the county report states that 85% road will be local citizens making the trip the other, What he was trying to say was that t 85%,and identified as primary users of the and what we are doing is accommodating the Commissioner Mason asked that the staff list all mitigating measures in the EIR all together so that they can see them in one place. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m., to be reconvened to a special meeting on Monday, December 12, 1983 at 7:30 p,m,, at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, and thence to a regular meeting on Monday, December 19, 1933, at 7:30 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California,