Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1980 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California November 17, 1980 Monday, 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Commissioner Ault STAFF Jere Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Associate Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; Lon Cahill, Fire Prevention Bureau; Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer; Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 3, 1980: Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes of November 3, 1980 as transmitted. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1047, VARIANCE 1600, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 80-767 - CONTINENTAL CITIES: Request to allow high-rise office development in the C-2 zone within 660 feet of the R-1 zone, an accessory wall sign which would exceed sign area limitation, and division of lot into 3 parcels on the east side of Parker Street, south of the Garden Grove Freeway. (Note: Draft Environmental Impact Report 646 has been prepared for this project.) (Continued from meeting of October 20, 1980.) Jere Murphy presented this application, stating that this applica- tion had been continued from the October 20th meeting in order to allow time to answer questions raised at that meeting. He ex- plained that the Staff and the applicant have met to discuss the answers to those questions. There has also been at least one meeting between the applicant and the residents of the North Santa Ana area. He also pointed out that last week the mayors and city managers of both Santa Ana and Orange had met and the applicant has prepared revised plans based on the recommendations of that meeting. Mr. Murphy pointed out the original plan on the board and explained that it had the cluster of three high rise buildings in the center north portion of the property, with the parking structure along the south edge. The revised plans show the three towers in the south central portion of the property and the parking structure in the northwest corner, adjacent to the Garden Grove Freeway. The parking structure along the north edge is six stories in height at this location, with two levels below grade. The buildings are all 15 stories in height along the central and southern portion of the property, being 210 feet in height, as opposed to the original plan of 8, 15 and 22 story buildings. The total square footage of the office areas is approximately the same 850,000 square feet, as opposed to the 877,000 square feet in the original plans. The three parcels still proposed in the project are: (1) the parking structure and the easternmost of the office towers, (2) the second tower and (3) the building closest to Parker Street. ,;~' Mr. Murphy explained that the Environmental Impact Report has been modified to reflect these changes as they are seen on the plan and there are nosignificant changes in the EIR, other than the physical Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Two design changes in the proposed project. He pointed out that refinements in the plan may still take place subsequent to tonight's meeting, since this plan is a revision which has been worked on only for a short period of time. Therefore, there may be additional requirements that may take place prior to its actual development if it is approved. Mr. Murphy stated that the sign variance would relate now to the most easterly office building and to this face which faces north- westerly, and basically is the same as the original request. He pointed out that the Planning Commission at the October 20th meeting asked the Staff to look into the proposal for the property in Santa Ana known as the Hurwitz property. The Staff has done so and the City of Santa Ana did not respond with any specific plans or schedule of development for that property. He pointed out that the Staff was additionally asked to respond to two questions, one with regard to parking ratios. The City of Santa Ana has a parking ratio of one parking space for every 300 net feet of development, while the City of Orange's basic require- ~' ment for buildings over four stories is one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Buildings below four stories require parking space of one space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Depending on the difference between the net leasable and the gross square footage of a building, it appears for a project of this type that the 300 square feet per parking space net vs. 400 square feet gross is a fairly similar number, in terms of the overall parking requirements. Mr. Murphy explained that the other question that the Staff has addressed is the question of the 4:1 bulk plane ratio that was recently established for the commercial zone. The 4:1 ratio allows development without the need for a conditional use permit, thereby being a threshold whereby a public hearing would be re- quired for anything over that 4:1 ratio. The project as proposed here would be somewhere in the area of 22 to 3:1 ratio of the 15 story buildings to the residential area to the south. He pointed out that again, as mentioned at the October 20th meeting, the Staff feels that the existence of Santiago Park and the heavy wooded area between the residential area to the south and the project provide screening that would not possibly be there under other situations. The Staff recommends three additional conditions in addition to the original 15 as contained in the original Staff Report, these being: 16. That a Transportation Systems Management Plan be prepared and implemented for the project. 17. That the applicant contribute up to $15,000 towards a traffic study to be commissioned jointly by the cities of Orange and Santa Ana of the area bounded generally by the Santa Ana Freeway on the south, Chapman Avenue on the north, Main Street on the west, and Parker Street on the east. 18. That applicant agrees to pay a yet-to-be specified amount of money for improving and benefiting area wide traffic circu- lation, the amount to be paid by Continental will be determined through a formula to be derived and applied to all developments within the area proposed for the traffic study. The formula to be presented to the Orange City Council for approval prior to the time this development is considered by the Council. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Three Mr. Murphy explained that the last two suggested conditions are a result of the meeting between the mayors and city managers of Santa Ana and Orange last week. Mr. Murphy then explained that the applicant is prepared to present additional comments, particularly in the area of the traffic cir- culation study. Chairman Coontz questioned regarding the Hurwitz property. She stated that since the City of Santa Ana had chosen not to answer their inquiries about the Hurwitz property, she wished an overview of this. Mr. Murphy stated that the City of Santa Ana provided only a background statement on the proposed developer for the Hurwitz property. There were no specifics given in that informa- tion with regard to the exact proposal on the property. Chairman Coontz then asked for a description of the area and the fact that it is part of a redevelopment project and what the possibilities could be. Mr. Murphy explained that the parcel is located on the east side of Main Street directly south of Town & Country Shopping Center. It is approximately 18+ acres in size and one of the last of the prime flat parcels of land in the Town & Country/Fashion Square area. Commissioner Master asked if that were being developed in regard to the renewal effort of the Fashion Square complex. Mr. Murphy replied that they were not aware of any developments within that portion of Santa Ana's redevelopment area. They may have plans for that area, but Orange has not been part of the communication about those plans at this point in time. Commissioner Master wondered if this would be part of the joint study effort. Mr. Murphy replied that the study area would include the basic Fashion Square area. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Henry A. Lambert, 139 E. 69th Street, New York, N.Y., the applicant, introduced Hank P~1olle, Molle, Perry & Associates, 2565 E. Chapman, Fullerton, who began by explaining with regard to traffic capacity and traffic fundamentals. He was talking about traffic capacity in terms of the ramps of the freeway and the arterial system to serve this project, and more particularly in accordance with the Planning Commission's request at the last meeting of the so-called pipeline projects and other projects that would have an effect on traffic facilities in this area. He explained that capacity in terms of passenger cars in one lane ranges from 1500 to 2000 cars per hour. The range depends upon the roadway, the time of day, the driver, whether it is a workday or a Sunday. The traffic signal is usually the capacity constraint on the arterial system. He pointed out that later on in his presentation, he would be talking about traffic light intersections and the reason why at a signal the lane capacity is reduced. Each green signal is on for less than one hour because more than one direction of traffic will be served by that signal. He explained that the level of service is away to rate the traffic flow at a signalized intersection and, in this particular study, they have selected to use average stop time for vehicles. The amount of stop time for vehicles stopping at a traffic signal is a way to rate how well that particular traffic system works. The profession has developed a letter system which explains how each system works, from A through F, A for best through F for worst. In this case, A is equal to or less than 15 seconds of average stop time delay with F being greater than 75 seconds. 46 to 60 seconds is normally considered to be an acceptable level. However, the bottom line is that the definition of acceptable is a policy decision for people like the Planning Commissioners to `~- determine. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Four With regard to the general analysis of the project, Mr. Molle explained that the general method was to determine traffic generated by each of the projects. They not only included Continental, but 5 other projects. He pointed out that they were not able to include the Hurwitz project, because they were not able to obtain specific information on that 18 acre parcel. For each of these pipeline projects, the traffic generation was determined for each project and then for each project the direction- al distribution was made for finding the traffic generated during the P.M, peak hour through the various streets and intersections. Based on the directional distribution, the traffic was assigned for each project through each of the study intersections. Then the traffic vines were adjusted for TSM and transit usage.. Then a traffic analysis was conducted at each intersection, utilizing a computer simulation program, The final study was to re-evaluate each of the study intersections based on assuming that the miti- gation measures were in place. The projects included in this study range from a medical center to another high rise office complex at La Veta and Pepper, another more modest medical building at La Veta and the off-ramp of the freeway, expansion of the homes in another complex, on the north side of Town & Country Road, the Continental Cities project and the previously approved 500 unit condo project. Mr. Molle explained that the addition of the other projects in this study is to give more perspective to the flow of traffic generation in the area. With each individual project, a separate directional assignment was carried out. He pointed out the direction of traffic flow projection for the Continental Cities project, showing a cer- tain amount of traffic that they feel would utilize Santiago Street. He explained that the next step was to take the individual ambient traffic 22% growth factor for annual growth on the street traffic for thru traffic, modification of the ambient traffic and generated traffic slightly downward for increased usage of transit and TSM measures. He explained that TSM things are staggered work hours, car pooling, various things that would tend to decrease the sharp- ness of the present peak traffic travel. He pointed out that the bottom line is that with the projects they have considered and the intensity as indicated in the report, together with the improvements and assumed distribution of the traffic it indicates, that there is some reservoir of capacity reserved after these projects are built to allow for future projects, such as development on the Hurwitz property. He did point out that as the level of congestion and the amount of traffic at a particular traffic signal increases, there is not a linear relationship between additional delay and additional traffic. Therefore, as you approach the higher ranges of traffic volumes and traffic capacity ratios, the delay increases rather rapidly. However, based on the improvements which are set out in the study, there is a lot of money proposed for improvements and they believe the project will be adequately served with the improvement program which they are suggesting. Commissioner Mickelson suggested that the mitigation measures be reviewed in more detail for the benefit of the people in the audience. Mr. Molle reviewed page 11 of the study, stating that the view graph shows the intersections that they found in need of improvement. The listing shows that there are 5 projects which are the main projects and if additional traffic were added, other projects, of course, would be needed. He pointed out that the two most critical intersections are the two intersections that lead to and from the freeway, both on the north and south sides of the freeway. This will be somewhat of an engineering challenge, especially when Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Five La Veta is approximately 72 feet curb to curb and, based on just preliminary analysis, they feel that double left turn lanes need to be provided for west bound to southbound onramp traffic from La Veta onto the freeway ramp. That ramp, because of the high occupancy vehicle lane will have to be widened to a total of three lanes so that this ramp will then have a capacity to be able to accept two lanes. He pointed out that there is a free right turn lane for eastbound to southbound onramp traffic from La Veta and that is also recommended to be widened to two lanes. That intersection is an extremely important one. Mr. Molle ex- plained that in addition to the item shown on Item 4 in the study that they discussed several items with Jim Bell, the engineer who serves this area for Caltrans. It was explained to them that the Garden Grove Freeway will be widened with the Caltrans program of ramp metering where they narrow the lanes down to 11 feet and put the New Jersey barriers in and this is being done on other sections of the Garden Grove Freeway. This will widen the freeway from 3 lanes to 4 lanes in each direction. Chairman Coontz asked for elaboration on the transportation systems management plan. Mr. Molle explained that this is a continuing program which will happen whether or not public agencies push or make requirements. It is a phenomena of increased transit usage, increased use of park and ride, increased awareness of staggered hours, preferential parking, car pooling - just a great number of things that we as drivers and company employers utilize to get home quicker. Basically, what it does is to take the sharp peak out of the P.M, peak hours. It tries to reduce the traditional intensity of the peak hours. Bernie Dennis, Traffic Engineer for the City of Orange, addressed the Commission and explained that the concept of Traffic Systems Management has been in use fora number of years in the more urbanized areas. With the onset of development, particularly in this area of Orange, they (the Staff) elected in conjunction with the proposed Continental development to require a traffic system management plan be subr~i~tted in conjunction with their development. He explained that the management plan is not universally applicable to all types of development. For. example, the Continental site is a local tenant type occupancy. One of the examples they could use fora TSM plan would be to require the lessor to develop an on- going program among the tenants of this facility for carpooling. They could require or the lessor could cooperatively provide pre- ferential or free or reduced rate parking by car pool users. They could require a higher number of compact car stalls. They could require onsite or offsite bus facilities. They could ask for shuttle service or they could ask for subsidized transit as part of the lease agreement. The one thing they would have to temper with this is, first of all, these are not applicable in total to any one development and secondly there is a competitive environment that must be maintained with any development, whether it be in Orange or Santa Ana. If they were talking about a development with a single tenant use, they could include the TSM plans as he has already indicated, and perhaps they could add such factors or features as staggered work hours, or perhaps a 4 day, 40 hour week. They could use anything along these lines to soften the P.M. peak, and what they are trying to do by using the TSM plans is first to reduce the total dependency on the passenger car in relation to the employ- ment type trip and secondly, if this can't be achieved, to increase the occupancy of the vehicle. Both of these go along in reducing the overall traffic generation. Commissioner Hart asked for Mr. Dennis' unbiased opinion of the mitigation measures as shown. Mr. Dennis considered them reasonable. To fund the type of improvements that they are speaking of, which amount could be from half to three quarters of a million dollars, Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Six there must be a program established where those developers or users contribute toward the cost of implementing these improve- ments. Whether the fee is based on an area vacancy per square foot or whether it's on generation, it should be implemented. Commissioner Hart asked if Mr. Dennis had attended the meeting between Orange and Santa Ana and he was told no. Commissioner Mickelson asked Mr. Dennis a question with regard to a time frame for when these improvements would be made. Mr. Dennis answered that Continental Cities, as part of tentative approval of their project, was required to make certain onsite improvements and certain offsite improvements,~plus they were required to fund the installation of a signal at Parker and Town & Country Road, in total or in part. Commissioner Mickelson then went on to question that when they get into the other mitiga- tion measures of half a million dollars, is it safe to presume that these measures will be phased over a period of time and they can hopefully, through the conditions that have been outlined of par- ticipating in the study and participating financially in the improvement, that they would be able to create a situation where some of these improvements would be installed simultaneously, perhaps with the use developed on the property. Or will they fall into a trap that they often fall into, where the building goes up and then it is too late. Mr. Dennis answered that the way this would work in theory would be that they have approximately three weeks to prepare a plan or a series of alternative plans to determine both the amount of money that would be required to implement the project that is spoken of tonight, or others that may come along through the result of their investigation. They would also determine the form this fee should be in, in the sense of how will it be assessed. He pointed out that Continental is not the only one involved. Thirdly, a schedule of collecting these fees in advance of, or at the time that the parti- cular improvement is needed. This is the charge by the Staff that is to be presented to the City Council in about three weeks. Mr. Dennis pointed out that a number of cities have traffic control development fees. Newport Beach has this type of system. Santa Ana in conjunction with Anaheim has implemented such a plan in the southwest part of the community. Chairman Coontz pointed out that at this point in time the only project in which Santa Ana is participating is the $15,000 traffic study. The rest of it appears to be contributions made in the City of Orange. Mr. Dennis replied that this is not totally true. The $15,000 that the City of Orange has agreed upon with the Continental Development Company for participation in the overall traffic study, the City of Santa Ana will also contribute as he would also assume development within their area. The $15,000 is just a part of the total study cost. It will cost considerably more than that. Maris Peika, 70 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, the architect for the development, addressed the Commission. He began by showing the Commission the plan which was presented at the October 20th meeting, which basically consisted of a parking structure adjacent to Santiago Park, an access road at the intersection of Town & Country and Parker, with a cluster of three buildings, one of 8 stories, one of 16 and one of 22. In their discussion with Santa Ana residents, many of their comments centered on two major issues regarding the original concept - the ~ location of the parking structure, which was adjacent to the park, Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Seven and also the height of the buildings. He pointed out that they have now developed an alternate concept which reacts to both of these concerns. They also took comments from the last meeting and developed a board showing more of the surrounding area. In the revised plan, they now have three towers of 15 floors each, being identical in height. Now it is 210 feet for all three buildings, as opposed to 310 feet in height for the tallest building in the former complex. They also have approximately a 100 foot setback at the closest point of the buildings to their property line adjacent to Santiago Park and they have some land- scape surface parking within that area. The parking structure is now adjacent to the freeway. They have maintained their major access into the project from Town & Country Road and Parker in order to facilitate the traffic along Town & Country and Parker north. Mr. Peika showed proposed project photograph is at note that shadow: freeway, with no Ana. the Commission an aerial photograph with the superimposed on it. He pointed out that the a north orientation and asked the Commission tc fall on top of the parking structure and the shadow going into the residential area of Santa Commissioner Master questioned the relocation of the parking structure, asking if this is a result of a combination of th e residents' concern of the structure abutting the park and perhaps the traffic engineer's preference that it be closer to the inter- section. Mr. Peika replied that the relocation is essentially a reaction to the Santa Ana community not wanting to have the structure as they had planned it, 5 feet adjacent to the park. He explained that traffic, in essence, is not affected by switching the parking structure from one location to another. They still have three points of access - one at Town & Country and Parker, and one at the north edge of the site and one at the south edge of the site. Commissioner Master pointed out that there is a third option which he wanted to bring up, and that was to leave the parking structure where it was, but terrace it and landscape it. The setback of the high rise buildings would be further away from the park with the parking structure being part of the setback of the buildings than the way it is now. Mr. Peika answered that this would be true - that there were two choices to go and that would be one of them. Their reading of the community concerns was that they were very concerned about the parking structure being so close to the park. Commissioner Master felt that the parking structure, even along the freeway, could be softened with terracing and landscaping. Mr. Peika pointed out that the freeway is approximately 30 feet above where they are, indicating their grades. The levels of parking that one would see directly horizontally from the freeway would be approximately two and they would certainly think land- scaping along that edge, adding to the landscaping on the freeway would help. Donald Easton, 1806 Santiago Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this application. He referred to the $70,000 that would be allocated to take care of the signal systems at Main and Town & Country Road. He pointed out that he has been a resident of this area since 1955. The impact of buildings of this type is great on the community. With the impact of 2000 more vehicles on the general area, the access of various areas will be very bad. He is bothered by the fact that one meeting was held since the last Planning Commission meeting on October 20th. Members of this Commissioner were not present and were not given Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Eight ~' the total information that happened from that meeting. That is not enough time to decide on a high rise situation in a family residential area. Mr. Easton pointed out that the aerial photograph gives us a view that high rises are cleaner looking than they really area. He does not want to see his children grow up in an urban situation like they are trying to do. A lot more questions should be asked by lawyers and people in power ratherthan citizens. Michael Thompson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, explaining that much has taken place since the last meeting of October 20th. Subsequent steps were taken with regard to concerns which Santa Ana had about this project. There is now a revised plan and there was a meeting between the two mayors and city managers of Orange and Santa Ana. Both of these speak to some of the concerns which the City of Santa Ana has had about this project. One of these concerns is the parking structure and its nearness to Santiago Park and its relocation, and the other is the issue of the high rise buildings and whether they should be cut back in some way to soften the transition of the project to the park and to the residential areas beyond. He explained that this particular plan was received just this morning and they have not been able to review it in great detail. It does not contain a great deal of information on setbacks, etc. They have an additional request to make of the Commission, in terms of the conditions that were also made at this meeting and were re- commended by Staff. There is a specific discussion of the $15,000 contribution toward a study. The description does not include what the City of Santa Ana regards as a very important reason for that study, and that is that they suggest that it be appended to the end of the Staff recommendations. This is to ensure that the traffic from the project will not impact Santiago. This is a key area of their concern and it is important to incorporate this into a description of the study. Therefore, they ask that the Commission, in conditioning this project, incorporate that word into the discussion of that study. Mr. Thompson further stated that the agreements that came out of this meeting are worded such that it is between the developer and the City of Orange. The City of Santa Ana is reserving the right to comment in detail about the projects and plans that come about as a result of these meetings which occurred on Friday. This is not specifically an agreement between the City of Santa Ana and the developer. They are in support of the project in some areas, but a number of their concerns are still there, the basis of the traffic study, the issue of the intensity of the use, the situation of the buildings. The details which need to be worked out in this area are items they feel they should be able to comment on. They would hope to be given some time to work in detail with the developer and with the Orange Staff on these things. They would like to be given sufficient time to work on this with the City of Orange. He further stated that the EIR still requires some additional work to incorporate some additional changes. Hopefully, the work done with the TSM program would also be addressed in this report. Based on the newness of this, Mr. Thompson explained that the city has not accepted any set plan. They still believe there must be some resolution of some of their concerns . The letter the City of Orange has received implies agreements and arrangements, a formula and some other materials that are going to have to be worked out at some time in the future. He spoke in regard to the letter from the Redevelopment Agency to the City of Orange. He did not believe that the letter is at- tempting to leave out any information. It is simply that they are uncertain at this time as to the nature of the development of the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Nine A number of proposals have been received and he thinks at this time the Redevelopment Agency is in the process of evaluating them. It would be premature for them to give explicit details about a project when no contracts have been signed, no commit- ments have been given and he felt that the Director of Redevelop- ment was attempting to convey this in his letter. Chairman Coontz commented that the implementation of all of this came about because of the concerns for Santiago. But the Planning Commission is interested in a larger area and the area study is bounded by Chapman on the north, Main Street on the west, Parker on the east and the Santa Ana Freeway. She would think that the City of Santa Ana would also be concerned with the effects of the larger area, because Santa Ana does have its high rise and will have it in the future and perhaps on the spot that was discussed. They are looking to the future, wishing to cooperate with the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, she would question adding this phrase. This was not specific to Santiago. Mr. Thompson answered that it was not his intention to specify that the study should solely focus on that, merely that some kind of wording would be incorporated to ensure that as the study was performed that the question of Santiago would be addressed among the other major questions that obviously will come out of that study. Linda Maxey, 2417 Valencia, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that several of the people in the audience were concerned, not only for this development, but other developments, including the development planned by Santa Ana. She explained that they are concerned about what such heavily leased buildings will do to their area. This does not incorporate just their neighborhood, but nei ghborhoods i n the City of Orange. These people are from the northeast area of Santa Ana. It represents 1100 homes. In the three weeks that they have known about this development, they have talked to about 500 homeowners. Their initial reaction was one of shock and dismay. This is a very different development from what has been done in that area. The other development has been in two-four story developments. Ms. Maxey pointed out that they are not anti-growth, but want reasonable planning and consideration for the area as a whole. As a result of such development, there will be adverse impact on the quality of the lives of the people in this area. She explained that their initial research tells them that they are not alone in their concerns. The City of Santa Ana has registered some concerns and Caltrans has also stated some concerns and has stated that the Garden Grove and surrounding. freeways could not absorb the increased traffic which such development proposes. They do take issue with the Environmental Impact Report in terms of its assumptions as to where that traffic would go. More of the traffic would go on local streets than the Environmental Impact Report specifies. Dan MacAllard, 2651 Santiago, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this project. He spoke about the defects which the people have noted in the EIR. He explained that his property is bounded by Santiago and the creek. He went on to say that even though they are not Orange residents, in away they are economic residents. He told the Commission that he would like to analyze the EIR, as a layman. As an overview, the project is massively oversized for this neighborhood. Other commercial structures have been built which are economically viable, with ratios of less than 1:1. This proposal is on the order of 2.3:1. This is almost Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Ten ~` three times what has been constructed in the area in terms of impact of buildin4s square footage of people who will drive cars in that immediate area. All of the problems and concerns that the Commission hears will be as a result of this gross imbalance of amount of square footage. With regard to parking, Mr. MacAllard stated that they did not feel that the estimates given in the EIR for parking, either within the structure or on the street, are correct. The structure will support 2143 units. Conservative use estimates within Orange are 30 to 40% higher than the ratio of the Continental Center project. St. Joseph's Hospital has found it necessary to seek offsite parking. They are three blocks away from this project. That means overflow will park on the neighborhood streets. With regard to crime, Mr. MacAllard pointed out that it is a well known fact that misdemeanor and felony crime increases propor- tionately to the population density. 2-4000 daytime residents in this project, a bank, and an enclosed parking structure will add dramatically and disproportionately to the crime rate in the area. Regarding flood control, Mr. MacAllard pointed out that the Santiago Creek bed is an integral and operational part of the Orange County Environmental Flood Control District. It is vital that the volume capacity of that creek bed and the levy capacity of the surrounding land be maintained at its present level. One of the things con- tained in the EIR is a scale plan drawing of this project and its surrounding area. Using that scale, Santiago Creek is 475' wide and 80' deep. This certainly is not true. Santiago Creek is, in fact, 95' wide and 10' deep. The same EIR scale represents residential houses to be 35' high. We all know that single stcry family residences are not 35' high . He felt that this representa- tion is purposely misleading and seriously distorts this project and its impact on the area. Commissioner Master felt that it would be appropriate to answer some of the comments as they come about, so that they don't linger. He commented on the parking ratio per square foot comments which had been made. Mr. MacAllard cited the hospital as an example and Commissioner Master pointed out that the medical use of any facility has the highest parking demand. The use of this particu- lar project falls in one of the lesser categories. You must look at the use of this building. You cannot use the one to compare with the other because of the differences in use. Michael Pearson, 2411 N. French Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission with regard to the traffic problems entailed with this project. He felt that the parking addendum to the traffic study on the Continental Center did not consider the impact of traffic south of Memory Lane. He explained that they live in the area south of 17th Street and the EIR does not speak to the true impact on their neighborhood. He pointed out that Caltrans also disagrees with the EIR. There is no way that only 5% of the traffic would go through their neighborhood. Common sense says that their figures are not real. Looking at the map, access area from south on the Santa Ana Freeway, according to the EIR, most of that traffic would come up the Newport Freeway to the Garden Grove Freeway and exit off the Garden Grove Freeway. That freeway would serve Mission Viejo, E1 Toro, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Irvine, San Juan Capi strano, Tustin, Costa h1esa, Newport Beach , parts of Fountain Valley, and South Santa Ana. That whole area would be serviced by the Santa Ana Freeway. The easiest access route off of the Santa Ana Freeway would be the Main Street exit. The next easiest would probably be the 17th Street exit that drops off on ~ 17th Street and also goes up Santiago. If a person were in a hurry, Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Eleven ~' which most people at 8 a.m. are, trying to get to work, the easiest exit would be off Main Street, which would take them past one school. If they come off at Grand to Fairhaven to Grovemont and again up Santiago would be their easiest route. There are many children in that area. Mr. Pearson's primary concern is that this area is not addressed at all in the EIR. This project will have an incredible. impact on their neighborhood. Kathleen Hutton, 2522 N. French, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this proposal, stating that as a neighborhood, they feel that aesthetically this will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Speaking on behalf of younger families, her children ride down Parker to go to Holy Family School. One-third of the area sits in the Orange Unified School District. These children are traveling north, and not south, to school. They feel that they are not necessarily the City of Santa Ana because there are political boundaries. Areawise, they are part of the City of Orange. They shop there and take their recreation there. She asked the Commission to consider their own residents to the north of them who are residents of Orange. Mildred Browning, 2535 Valencia, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that she has lived in her home for 27 years. She has lived in the area since 1910. She explained that when she goes to work in the Anaheim or Orange area, she tries to come home before 4 P.M. due to congestion on the freeways and other streets. She stated that she was speaking as a representative of the older citizens in the area, many of whom have lived there for 50 years. They all try to be home before 4 P.M. because of the traffic problems. She works for large concerns and it is very difficult to regulate the traffic of a large development. If there is bad parking, people will walk several blocks and park their cars on residential streets. The streets cannot be swept if there are cars parked all day long. Trash collection is another problem. Many cars parked on the streets can cause a trash problem. She pointed out that there are many people in the area we are speaking of and they are stable citizens and should be given some consideration. Joanne Lechner, 2337 N. Santiago, Santa Ana, informed the Commission that on October 29th homeowners met with the City of Santa Ana and Mr. Lambert of Continental. After the meeting, he asked her what type of project the homeowners would want to have. The people want lower density with a town & country type of atmosphere. They would be in favor of a 4-story development with total office space of not more than 4000 sq. ft. The community is highly concerned about the extreme density this development will bring to the area. This is a very close knit, concerned community, many of whom have lived there for a long time and love their homes. They work together to try and plan the kind of community they all want and live in. Mickey Madden, 2319 N. Rosewood, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission in opposition to this development, stating that the northwest Santa Ana homeowners are in sympathy with the northeast homeowners. She has worked in real estate for 18 years in the Santa Ana, Orange, Anaheim area and she is concerned about the residential areas. Commercial is the only thing going in now. She is against this. We need the residential areas and less commercial. She would be just as against this project if it were in Santa Ana. People will take the fastest way to the freeway they can go and it is usually through residential streets. She does not want to see the older areas go in favor of commercial, as the young people will never find a home. They cannot afford anything new and usually purchase the older homes and fix them up. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Twelve Ms. Madden explained that they would like to think that Orange and Santa Ana are good neighbors and they should be planning what is best for all. High rises should be downtown and not near resi- dential areas. A man should do what he wants with his property unless he needs a variance. Then the quality of living should be taken into consideration. The applicant then responded to the questions brought up by the people who spoke. Mr. Lambert explained that they have tried to be responsive to the concerns of everyone. He pointed out that first of all, they are not in the flood plain. There is some misinformation in the study with regard to Santiago Creek, but it is not applicable. He explained that they are building 150 more stalls in this project, which are required by code. He pointed out that there is only one small variance being asked for and it has to do with a sign. Mr. Lambert stated that they have had a series of meetings with the citizens of Santa Ana and have met with the mayors and city managers of Santa Ana and Orange and have tried to respond to all concerns. They have agreed to participate in a traffic study and in whatever financial considerations are necessary to mitigate the problems. They share the concerns of the citizens and do not want to construct to the detriment of the people. They feel that there is a very definite plus about grouping people. Density is the only way to have mass transportation. Chairman Coontz asked Mr. Dennis and/or Mr. Molle to respond with regard to the presentation which had been given on the traffic direction and the questioning of the 5%. Mr. Molle responded by saying that they have looked at the access roads in the point of view of the origins of response time of travel and traffic control. It is their best judgement that the directional distribution and assignments for this project and other projects are consistent. Commissioner. Mickelson asked how long the traffic study might take to produce. Mr. Molle replied that the study design has not been formulated by the two cities, but one of the key elements would be consideration of local traffic in the Santiago area in question. In his judge- ment, it would consume quite a bit of time. There should be a lot of meetings and a lot of input from both Staff and residents in the area. He thought probably a six month period and it could take up to one year. Mr. Dennis then used the aerial overview to point out that through- out the concept of the Continental Center has been Santiago as a bypass. People on the whole will use a particular route that is most expeditious. If Santiago were to be used in excess of 5%, their end destination would be in the area of 17th Street to get on the Santa Ana Freeway. This is one of the most congested on- ramps on the freeway. Santa Ana plans to extend Memory Lane. This would extend Broadway over the Santa Ana Freeway, aligning with Owens, running along to reach from the Santa Ana Freeway to Lawson Way as a six lane facility, reducing at Lawson to four lanes via Parker up to La Veta. The City of Orange's section of Parker is currently developed to a four lane highway. He pointed out that if there was a demand to continue south, it is unlikely that Santiago would be the first choice alternative. The other alternative along, what would really be an arterial highway, over to Main and down Main to the I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) would seemingly be the first choice alternative. If, on the other hand, the residents of Santa Ana would like, the City of Orange would have no objection to the Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Thirteen physical closure of Santiago. They would be denying themselves some access to the ramp connection with the Garden Grove Freeway. That connection would then only occur via an east-west route instead of a north-south route. He explained that if you look at the freeway opportunities in the area of this development, it is not isolated to just the interchange of the Garden Grove Freeway at La Veta. Approximately 22 minutes away is the additional inter- change for the Garden Grove/57 Freeways. Via La Veta back down to Glassell, there is yet another ramp connection to the 22 Freeway. At Main Street to Orangewood, or Chapman, you have access to the 57 Freeway. As far as freeway accessibility is concerned in respect to this development, there are quite a number of oppor- tunities that would seemingly preclude the use of Santiago Boulevard. Responding to the question about the State, Mr. Dennis explained that the State did indeed indicate that the ramp connections to the Garden Grove Freeway were insufficient. They would not accom- modate the capacity generated by this development and others. However, one of the mitigating measures was that additional lanes be provided to accommodate this flow. Mr. Dennis further pointed out that there had been a conversation between Mr. Molle and a state traffic engineer, who indicated that the Garden Grove Freeway would gain additional lanes by restriping. Responding to the question about severe congestion on the Garden Grove Freeway and the Newport Freeway, he asked them to remember that the majority demand, particularly along the 55 Freeway is, in the morning, toward the Irvine Industrial Complex, and back in the afternoon toward the I-5 and perhaps the Riverside-Norco area. This project would attract and generate on almost a counterflow basis. If the employees are residing in the Irvine area, they would be coming up the 55, not in opposition to the vehicles on the 55 going into the Irvine area. The same would hold true for the P.M. traffic. Chairman Coontz wondered if Memory Lane is on the Santa Ana circu- lation element proposal and Mr. Dennis replied that their Staff indicates that the EIR for the project, which has been long coming, will be complete in about three months. They feel that the con- struction will be complete in probably three years. Commissioner Hart wondered if Mr. Dennis were familiar with a discussion within the City of Santa Ana about the cul-de-lacing of Parker Street. Chairman Coontz stated that she had mentioned this at the last meeting and she thought it was a good idea, but she understood that there was a long standing argument within the areas as to the closure. Mr. Dennis replied that it was his understanding that the EDT for the area was about 4000 vehicles per day. Ap- parently it had increased by 300 vehicles in the last three years. This could largely be contributed to the development within the area. He explained that one of the big concerns about closing the north-south arterial would be that you wouldn't in essence lose traffic. It would be redistributed. Another concern would be the physical realignment of the area and the lack of north-south access, other than Santiago to this area. Chairman Coontz identified what she perceived as a misconception of the zoning in the area. It has been zoned commercial for a long time. The people have stated that they want to keep it residential. There was comment from the uadience that this was not so. ^~ Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Fourteen William Burns, 2657 N. Larchmont, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that looking at the map there is one thing overlooked as you come down Santiago. There is a Main Street onramp and a Main Street offramp, which goes right into a residential neighborhood. People can use that street and go right onto the ramp. Mr. Dennis asked Mr. Burns his opinion about closing Santiago Boulevard. He replied that he lives in that neighborhood because he needs to get to St. Joseph Hospital quickly, since he has had several heart attacks. He has mixed emotions. If the street is congested, he would not be able to get to St. Joseph in time. Commissioner Master had a question with regard to parking, which he addressed to Mr. Murphy. One of the speakers had made a com- ment about the fact that the ratio of parking had been appropriate for the use and cited as an example CHOC and St. Joseph's Hospital and the rest of the attendant medical facilities in the area. Commissioner Master felt that the use of the medical facilities posed a much higher use for parking than this type of complex would. Mr. Murphy replied that this is true and the medical facilities do create a greater demand for parking traffic. He explained that St. Joseph's is presently using a Santa Ana parking garage and shuttle service for their employees, which indicates that there is a parking problem there. They are in the process of making changes to that parking situation, as well as there are additional plans for buildings in the St. Joseph complex. That is still on the drawing boards at this time. This really isn't a valid comparison. Commissioner Master commented that he works for Fluor, which is the largest employer in Orange County. He explained that their crime rate, if there is any, is because people drive Porsches, which other people like to steal. There has been no impact in the sur- rounding neighborhood. It is more the theft of vehicles being used by the employees. He explained that there is an apartment structure approximately 300 feet away, with condominiums another 200 feet and single family residential 200 feet beyond that. Ronnie Norris, 818 Larchmont, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission with regard to health and safety. She explained that St. Joseph's Hospital is a first hour receiving station in the County. She wondered what the impact will be through heavy rush hour traffic. Chairman Coontz replied that the traffic study will cover this type of question. There being no one else to speak for or against this application, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hart questioned the relationship between the phasing of these mitigating measures in the traffic report and Phase Three of the project scheduled for 1983. Mr. Lambert replied that what was envisioned was that there would be a charge for assessment levied as each building was built. Fees would be resolved by communities. to be spent as required as they developed their plans for mitigating measures. Commissioner Master stated that he was assuming that the EIR would be modified. Chairman Coontz explained that the EIR is an open document and additional presentations, minutes and reports will go into it. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Fifteen Commissioner Mickelson made some general comments relating to the whole project, including the EIR. He explained that he felt much better about the traffic study now than he did at the last meeting. He still has concerns about the total area, which is not necessarily the responsibility of this developer to solve the entire problem. He pointed out that the fact that Staff, the applicant and the traffic engineers all agree that there is further study needed would lead us to believe that we don't have all the answers even yet. But he did think that they must come to a point in time on a given project that a decision must be made and he is willing for there to be a decision made in this instance. Commissioner Mickelson wondered what the long term effects are going to be. Assume that they approve the project based on the information they have. What happens if they take the figures given in the traffic study and find out that in 10 to 15 years they cannot handle what they .thought they could handle. It is hard to fly in the face of professionals who do a professional study and tell you one thing and then try and counteract that with what might be his opinion. In his opinion, he thinks people will travel down Santiago and Memory Lane more than the professional studies indicate they will. Chairman Coontz wondered if Commissioner Mickelson were questioning the specific mitigation measures that were applicable to this applicant. Commissioner Mickelson replied by pointing out that if they approve the three towers as requested., with the applicant accepting certain mitigation measures, then the applicant goes into Phase 1 and builds the first tower and everything works fine. About that time, after a traffic study, they find out they cannot handle Phase 3, but they can handle Phase 1 and 2. Would they be doing a disservice to the developer if this happens? Mr. Lambert replied that he would suggest that the funds which were allocated for mitigation measures could be increased as time goes on. It was stated in the discussions between the two cities that amounts would be fluid. Commissioner Hart felt that there could be some problems with this with the parking structure going in during Phase 1. Commissioner Mickelson felt that this is a viable project at this point with all the information which they have before them. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that in the course of the year to 18 months it will take to complete Phase 1 and occupy the first building, they should by that time have an answer as to whether it is feasible and proper to close Santiago or to do some realignment of traffic patterns in the area. They have come across one of the best opportunities they have had for two cities to get together and solve problems in an area. He is worried about creating a chicken and egg situation. As they have found many times in the past, they cannot redo a street until it is already overcrowded. He felt that great strides have been made in this particular proposal and the mitigation measures, but he brought this up for discussion be- cause he wants them all to understand what this really means to the city. Does it mean that they are really getting the improve- ments out ahead of the need or at least getting them in simultaneous- ly with the need. ^! Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Sixteen Chairman Coontz stated that she felt more confident about the whore situation since the last meeting. They have asked that a different traffic study be made and because of their discussions and the discussions at the City Council level and the City Manager level that they are on the right road to solving the problems of the area. Commissioner Hart commented regarding the possibility of phasing. There is an after-the-fact solution on Santiago. If the traffic situation does get so involved, the street could be closed after the project is under way. That intersection is not within the City of Orange so they do not have anything to say about it, however. Chairman Coontz pointed out that there is no problem with the EIR because it is an open document. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart to recommend acceptance and approval of Draft .EIR 646, which is certified as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the state and local guidelines, be- cause it is found that because of the mitigating .measures suggested in the draft EIR and so amended as of this date, the revised project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environ- ment. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Mickelson asked a question on clarification procedure. Assuming that this were not a controversial item, theoretically they could take the final action, unless it were appealed. He wondered if this was correct. He was told that this was correct. He went on to ask if the City Council has the option of holding it up for discussion on their own motion and was told by Mr. Murphy that this also was correct, Mr. Murphy pointed out that the memo that they received from the mayor with regard to the meetings held last week appeared to anticipate the project to come before the Council. Commissioner Mickelson then .asked if the Commission should possibly act out of the ordinary and make a recommendation instead of a decision. It was Chairman Coontz's feeling that this is what they would be doing. Commissioner Mickelson pointed out that he would like to create a situation that this is sent to the Council on the Commission's recommendation, in spite of the technical fact that it does not have to. This would avoid the necessity for some- one to appeal the decision. Chairman Coontz pointed out the 15 conditions listed in the Staff Report, plus the three additional conditions added tonight. She again read these conditions. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Variance 1600, with the condition that the maximum signage area permitted by both signs shall not exceed a total of 20% of the building face and that such signs shall be specifically reviewed by the Design Review Board for aesthetic acceptability. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page Seventeen Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Mickelson to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 1047, subject to the 15 conditions outlined in the Staff Report, with the addition of Conditions 16, 17 and 18, outlined earlier in the minutes. Commissioner Mickelson brought up a point of discussion. He understood that the reason for the redesigned site plan had much to do with the reactions of neighbors in Santa Ana. He felt that the idea of opening the site itself up to the park is a good one. If he were living there he would be concerned about height. He stated that he was a little disappointed in the skyline of all one height buildings. He had liked the buildings of different heights. Commissioner Master wondered if it would be appropriate to address in this motion the parking structure as viewed from other areas, or is this what the Design Review Board would do for them. The answer was that the Design Review Board would do this. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of revised Tentative Parcel Map 80-767, subject to the Engineer's Plan Check Sheet. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Hart asked when this would go before the City Council and Mr. Murphy replied that it would be about 3 weeks. Commissioner Hart was concerned that there be a contact person for the group here tonight so that they could attend the public hearing at the City Council meeting. It was explained that the City of Santa Ana would be notified. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: ZONE CHANGE 934 - CITY OF ORANGE: Request to impose overlay zoning of FP-1 on Santa Ana River. (Note: Negative Declaration 654 has been prepared for this project in lieu of an environmental impact report.) Stan Soo-Hoo presented this application on behalf of the Staff. He explained that this is a request to assign overlay zoning FP-1 (Flood Plain) and that the property consists of the entire Santa Ana River within the City of Orange. The property is presently used for flood control purposes and much of it is zoned R-0 (Recreation Open Space) though some remains unzoned. Mr. Soo-Hoo pointed out that on October 21, 1980 the City Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted an ordinance creating flood plain zoning designations for the city. He explained that the FP-1, overlay zoning is proposed to be assigned to the Santa Ana River, which would effectively limit land uses allowed within the River to those which would not be heavily damaged by flooding. All properties to be zoned are owned by either the County of Orange or the City of Orange. This zoning action was requested by the County of Orange in order to qualify for state and federal subventions for flood control purposes. The intent of requiring such action is to minimize damage which may ~„ occur during flooding. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page -Eighteen Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 654. Staff feels that the imposition of the FP-1 overlay zone on the Santa Ana River is logical and reflects good planning practice. Approval is therefore recommended for the reasons that the proposed overlay zoning is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan; that the proposed overlay zoning is compatible with surrounding land use and zoning and that it will restrict future land uses within the Santa Ana River to reflect its existence as an existing watercourse. Commissioner Master asked what the next step is after zoning this area. The answer was that the next step would be FP-2 zoning. Ultimately there will be an FP-2 zone imposed on the outer reaches of the river and also part of Santiago Creek. This will be a more controversial issue, because of the private nature of the areas. Mr. Murphy then pointed out that this rezoning, as well as that of Santiago Creek, has nothing to do with the Flood Insurance Program. But the FP-2 zoning would be involved with '.that program. the second step would be to rezone some of the Santiago creek area. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Donald Easton, 1806 Santiago, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission, stating that he feels that there has been great improvement in that area since the flood of 1969. He believes they are working into some green belt areas. He wondered if that Commission was still in working order and does it have anything to say about this area. Chairman Coontz replied that this was overlay zoning, so R-0 zoning would still be in effect. This zoning will make no difference to the public use situation of the green belt. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration No. 654. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend approval of Zone Change 934, for reasons as outlined in the Staff Report. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1050 - HANLEY: Originally approved to allow conversion of a single family residence to antique shop on the west side of Glassell Street, south of Palm Avenue. Revocation proceedings initiated due to failure to comply with conditions of approval. There was discussion among the Commissioners as to whether they should continue this item one time in order to give the applicant another change to attend a public hearing. Commissioner Hart pointed out that he sits on another committee with the owner of this property and she has made it very clear that she does not intend to comply with the two conditions in question. After more Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1980 Page nineteen discussion, Commission decided to go ahead with this item. Mr. Murphy pointed out the memorandum written to the Planning Commission with regard to this subject, explaining that they basically had three alternatives: 1) That applicant could reconsider or agree to some acceptable modification of the condition. 2) If applicant does not agree, then the Commission could either recommend to the City Council revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, or 3) Delete the condition. Chairman Coontz opened the public hearing. Donald Easton, 1806 Santiago, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission regarding the parking situation. If you are going to have a business, you must have parking. It was explained to him that the people did not wish to dedicate and improve Glassell. There being no one else to speak to this issue, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mickelson brought up another place on South Glassell where they were allowed to make improvements within 3 to 5 years. Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Master to recommend that the City Council revoke Conditional Use Permit 1050, for reasons of non-compliance with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit and app licant's lack of response to two public hearings that were held in this regard. AYES: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson NOES: Commissioners none ABSENT: Commissioner Ault MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to reconvene on Saturday, November 22, 1980 at 9:00 AM, and then to November 24, 1980 at 5:15 PM, after which it will then reconvene at 7:30 PM on Monday, December 1, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORAPJGE ) Jere Murphy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange; that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on November 17, 1980; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on November 18, 1980, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of November 17, 1980 was held. C I EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMA^ISSION HELD ON NOVEh1BER 17, 1980 The regular meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Coontz at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Coontz, Hart, Master, Mickelson ABSENT: Ault Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master that this meeting adjo~~rn at 10:45 p.m. on Monday, November 17, 1980 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Monday, December 1, 1980 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere ~~lurphy, Secretary to the Orange Planning Commission, Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of that portion of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, November 17, 1980. Dated this 18th Day of November, 1980 at 2:00 p.m. re Murphy, Cif Planne & Secretary the Planning Commissi n of the ity of Orange.