Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1986 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION \ MINUTES City of Orange November 17, 1986 Orange, California Monday - 7:30 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission ti#as called to order by Vice-Chairman Greek at 7:30 p.m. `r3''. PRESENT: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Mason STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner and Acting Commission Secretary; Joan Wolff, Assistant Planner; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Bob Von Schimmelman,..Sr. Civil Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~~ N RE: .MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Minutes of November 3, 1986, be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-86-A, ZONE CHANGE 1058, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1551 - IRAJ EFTEKHARTI/DEFT DESIGN, INC.: Staff received a letter from the property owner requesting this item be withdrawn and not considered any further. This is the application on Orange- Olive Road and Whitecap. Lloyd Farris, 2738 E. Swell, asked if property owners will be notified in the future if another public hearing on this matter is scheduled. He also asked how the City notifies property owners of a public hearing. Mr. McGee stated that all property owners within 300 feet of a proposed project are notified by mail and the public hearing is also published in the newspaper. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission withdraw General Plan Amendment 3-86-A, Zone Change 1058, and Conditional Use Permit 1551. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED P12nning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 2. IN RE: NE~J HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1543- YMCA OF ORANGE: Request to conduct bingo games within the existing. YMCA facility in the R-0 (Recreation-Open Space) zone, located on the north side of Palmyra Avenue, west of Yorba Street, NOTE: This project is exempt from Environmental Review. As no one was opposed to this item, a staff report was not given. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1543 subject to the conditions as shown on the staff report. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT; Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Dan Woolridge, 270. N. Pine, President of the Orange YMCA, would like to comment on the staff report.. The Y Board does have some concerns relating to some of the staff recommendations. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission re-open the public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED The public hearing was opened. Dan Woolridge stated in order to voluntarily comply with the staff, they have changed the day of bingo from Wednesday evenings to Sunday afterr noons. However, it is felt that 1$0 participants should be allowed instead of staffs recommendation of 100 participants. The issue is the unpaved parking area, which is built on top of an old dump site. A paved parking lot would not be beneficial because of ground movement; also, it would be very costly. The Y believes there is sufficient parking within the internal unpaved area, which is used year round by the BMX facilities and a variety of other community programs. The Y intends to be good neighbors to the residents and people in the community. They have not caused any undue parking problems and the number of complaints is marginal considering the X is used seven days a week, year round. They request approval of 180 participants and waiving any additional parking. Commissioner Master asked what the rationale was for the 100 participants? Mr. McGee said the rationale was based on the amount of paved parking that is provided. There are 30 paved parking spots on the YMCA facility. And the YMCA has received authorization from the school district to Planning November Page 3. Commission Minutes 17, 1986 use 36 paved parking spaces on the adjacent school property. Using that number of spaces and what appears to be an accepted level of 1 1/2 participants per parking spot, which other cities seem to find as a useable number, the 100 participants is the number that was arrived at. Commissioner Master asked if motocross on Wednesday nights has been a problem with the 400 people? Mr. McGee stated the staff report mentions motocross attracts between 100 and 400 participants on a regular basis. Parking facilities used then are the paved YMCA parking facility, the. unpaved parking area (80 spaces), the adjacent Yorba Park parking facilities and perhaps the school facility. There are also parking spaces on the adjacent residential streets that are used for those operations. That is staff's primary concern -- to make sure those residential streets are not used for parking for this type of use. Commissioner Hart has problems with using an unpaved parking lot because when it rains, people are not going to park there but on the street. He can t see granting a variance to the organization just because they -are charitable over any commercial venture. Mr. Woolridge commented on the year round utilization on the existing BMX facility parking lot. The unpaved parking lot is used by those participants. Only special events cause the use of the school facility's .parking lots. They believe the existing paved parking lots and gravel parking lots, in conjunction with the school lots, would be more than sufficient.. Bingo is a family event. Two and three people will be coming together. The YMCA also has a fleet of vans contemplated for use to bring those people in the area to the site to minimize the parking problem, Tt is estimated the Y can raise up to $50,000/year as revenue. The Y is looking at a financial program that will potentially allow theme to expand their facility. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott would like to give the Y a period of time for review. Tf the parking problem does become an issue, they would have to revert it back to the 100 participants. Staff would need to monitor the bingo games on Sunday afternoons to determine if there is a problem and Planning Commission would evaluate this progress in six months. Commissioner Master would .like the applicant to express his concurrence with this request. Mr. Woolridge is in agreement with this. Commissioner Scott said it was the understanding then if the parking became a problem at the end of six months, the Y would revert back to the 100 participants. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 4. Discussion between. the Commission and Assistant City Attorney ensued regarding the previous motion and this new condition. Anew motion was needed to add the new condition. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the conditions by staff be amended. to read - approve 180 bingo participants; and, also with the condition this would be reviewed in six months (.Condition ~~9). Tf a parking problem does exist. within the neighborhood, that the participants be rolled back to a maximum of 100. AXES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-86-8, ZONE CHANGE 1059, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1541, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-368 - TRAJ EFTEKART/DEFT DESIGN INC.: The fohowng requests are made regarding a .77 acre parcel located on the east side of Orange-Olive Road between Heim Avenue and St. James Avenue. -- General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from low density residential to high. density residential (15 to 24 dwelling units per acre),. - Tentative Parcel Map application to allow the creation of two lots; lot one approximately 25,600 square feet, lot two approximately 7,600 square feet. - Zone Change from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential, minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) District. - Conditional Use Permit to allow two-story development within 70 feet of an R-1 District; and to allow the moving of a structure. NOTE: Negative Declaration 10$3 has been prepared for, this project. Mr. McGee presented the staff report along with exhibits of the proposal. The addresses on the property are 2575 and 2587 Orange-Olive Road. Two parcels exist currently; one parcel that extends from Orange-Olive Road through to the next street to the east, Delta, and the site currently contains a single family residential structure. Surrounding properties are all zoned R-1-7, single family. The uses surrounding the property are single family residential. The applicant wishes to develop the Orange-Olive frontage of the property with 14 apartment units. That lot would be split by the tentative parcel map to be a separate parcel. It would leave a 7,700 square foot parcel fronting on Delta Avenue. The Delta Avenue fronting parcel would retain the single family residential zone, The existing structure would be relocated onto that newly created parcel: The apartment development is approximately 24 units per acre in density. The units on the south portion of the property are approxi- mately five feet from the property line, those are two story structures hence the requirement for the conditional use permit for the structures within certain proximity to a residential zone. The staff has reviewed Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 5. the request in relation to the existing zoning and land use designations surrounding the property and has come to the conclusion that the high density residential request is not appropriate in this particular location given the very low intensity development surrounding the property. Staff does agree with the applicant that perhaps the low density in single family residential zoning for the portion of the lot fronting on Orange- Olive Road is not appropriate to remain a single family; however, high density does appear to be something more intense than the neighborhood really should be required to accommodate. A number of recommendations have been made in the staff report. Staff does recommend that Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1083. Staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 3-86~B, Zone. Change 1059 and Conditional Use Permit 1541 for the. reasons as stated. Staff recommends approval of the parcel map to create the two parcels as illustrated on the wall exhibit. The public hearing was opened. Iraj Efterkhari, 1850 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, requested 14 units for this project. Studies have been made. as far as traffic is concerned. iaanted to introduce his associate at this time. Dave Matson, 1850 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, explained the process and purchasing procedures undertaken for this project. Multiple use seems to be the best use for this property. The question becomes the density. In looking at this particular piece of .property, the land cost designates .that the project that in order to be feasible, needs to have some sort of higher density. Otherwise, the lot will remain as it is with probably no development. The total land cost is significantly more than what a half acre of new property in Anaheim Hi11s would cost. Residential would not be the best use of this property. Traffic count is about 12,000 cars per day; that's far more than any single family residential street would have and yet it's not enough to put an active type of commercial use on it. Higher density would be the only thing that would make this feasible. Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Matson to define the phrase land cost. Mr. Matson said. land cost is what they would have to pay for the property. Commissioner Hart asked why anyone would pay more than the property was worth. Mr. Matson said it would not be worth it for single family development. Commissioner Hart asked what makes. the land so .expensive. Mr. Matson stated the owners.' feeling of what the property is worth .and also what the comparable sales 3n the area are a Commissioner Hart asked if the land you refer to makes it mandatory that the property be zoned to a dense use.... Mr. Matson stated from their point of view, or from any developer they have talked to, yes. . Pl~.nning Commission Minutes November 17, 1186 Page 6. Commissioner Hart stated this body has never taken this into consideration. His interpretation of fair market value is what apiece of property will bring if exposed to the market for a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Matson. also said it is based on what could be put on that piece of property. Commissioner Hart stated that was the key. In other words, if you could get the density, it would be worth what you're being asked to pay for it. If you cannot get the density, then it is not worth what you're asked to pay for it. Mr. Matson stated that was true.. Commissioner Hart said then the Commission was being asked to make it worth more to the seller. Mr. Matson said no, just to establish a reference point for the basis of their reasoning. Commissioner Hart stated economic need has not been a basis for zoning. Those. speaking in opposition: Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, opposes this as it is setting a dangerous precedent in the City of Orange. If the City starts granting density because someone was not careful enough when he bought, the City is in deep trouble. Should look at the densities as they exist and should not look at the price the person paid for the land. Nancy Hoey, 2555 Delta Street, opposes the development of high density residential apartments within such a close proximity to R-1-7. A medium density with marginal restrictions would be more favorable. William Snyder, 16341 Cumberland Road, owns property on Orange-Olive Road,. Questions putting high density whether the City finds it necessary, as it did North Lincoln on Orange^01ive Road, to block off a lane of traffic. Orange-Olive has a fairly high rate of traffic. Blocking a lane of traffic only exasperates the traffic problems we already have in the City. Also feels the two story development in an area surrounded by R-1 would be a poor use of that land. Warren Hollabaugh, 2560 Delta, has property that butts up to the corner of that property and doesn't look forward to two story buildings five feet from his property line. Single family is fine, but strongly opposed to two story. John Aceves, 2570 N. Delta, will be directly involved with that development if approved. Supports Commissioner Hart's position. If the Commission agrees with this, you are giving the financial support to someone the developer will-pay for only because of the density; without the density the land value is not there. Pl~.nning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 7. Robert Williams, 2737 Swe11 Street, reiterated the traffic problems on Orange-Olive Road. Tt's a very dangerous situation out there. Marian Olson, 2706 North Dunbar .Street, stated that schools have been closed in the area from lack of children. New influx of apartments would create more confusion. It would also be an eyesore to have a patch of high density. Ken Olson, 2687 North. Orange-Olive Road, spoke on behalf of himself and his business partner. Their primary concern is that there will be a negative impact on the Center: -What little commercial use there is will be almost completely wiped out because of the high density of traffic. Mr. Matson stated they did consider most of the elements in their decision. As far as the school-impact, he understands the school district is reconsidering motions as to closing some of the schools. The 14 units are mostly family oriented. It was also felt the develop- ment would be helpful to local commercial and opposition was not anticipated. We do thank the staff for agreeing that there should be a zone change. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they accept the findings of the Environemntal Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1083. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning .Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny General Plan Amendment 3-86-B, Zone Change 1059, and Conditional Use Permit 1541; and to approve Tentative Parcel Map 86-368. Commissioner Greek stated the zoning ordinance does require a minimum lot depth of 100 feet and there is no exception for one lot line being shorter than the other. Thinks the Commission would be in error by approving the Tentative Parcel Map. The property owners do not want the property cut in half. Commissioner Hart changed the motion to also deny Tentative Parcel Map 86-368. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ® ABSENT: Commissioner Mason MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 8. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 4-86-A, ZONE CHANGE 1061- KOLL COMPANY AND CITY OF ORANGE: Approximately 14 acres generally bounded by Orangewood Avenue on the north, Anaheim Boulevard on the southwest, Walnut Avenue on the northeast, and State College Boulevard on the east. Proposed General Plan Amendment from County of Orange Suburban Residential and Community Commercial, and City of Orange Industrial, to City of Orange Major Commercial, Proposed Pre-Zone Change from County of Orange R-1 and C-2, and Zone Change from City of Orange M-l, to City of Orange C-1 or C-2. NOTE: EIR 1018, previously certif ied for a prior project, is being used to describe this project. An addendum to EIR 1018 has been prepared for a portion of the project site. Commissioners Greek and Hart both abstained from voting due to a potential conflict of interest; however, in order to have a quorum, Commissioner Greek remained present.. Commissioner Hart excused himself from the meeting, Mr. Jim Reichert, Associate Planner - Advanced Planning, presented the staff report to the Commission, The'study area has been expanded to include an additional 5.5 acres. Koll is the applicant on approximately 8.5 acres, For .ease of discussion, the area has been divided into four sections - A, B, C and D. Sections A and B are those properties which the Kol1 Company has applied for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change actions on, Areas C and D basically running along Anaheim Boulevard, are properties that are not controlled by the Koll Company, but staff's review in the application felt the study area should be expanded to include those areas, The Kol1 Company application relating to Section A encompasses properties in unincorporated Orange County territory. It has no land use desig- nation on the City of Orange General Plan; however, it is within the Sphere of Influence.. The present County General Plan in that area is Suburban Residential property zoned County R-1 and it is developed with single family homes,. The request is to designate the City of Orange General Plan for Major Commercial and to get a Pre-Zone Change of C-1. Section B, also under the control of the Ko11 Company, is presently in the City of Orange zoned M-1 and developed with a mixture of industrial and residential uses. Proposed on that section is also a General Plan Amendment from its existing Industrial designation to Major Commercial, and a Zone Change from M-1 to C-1. In reviewing Koll Company's application, it was felt that a need to expand. the study area to round out the tri- angular area bounded by Anaheim ,Boulevard on the southwest, Orangewood on the north and State College on the east. Section C is comprised of six parcels presently in unincorporated County territory. It's presently shown as Community Commercial on the County of Orange General Plan; it has no land use designation on the City of Orange General Plan. Property is zoned County C-2. If the Koll Company is successful in getting Sections A and B general planned Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 9. and zoned, those properties in Section C would comprise the only re- maining properties in that portion of our .Sphere of Influence that are not in the City of Orange. k'hen the Phase I Koll Project was processed through LAFCO, indication was made, by LAFCO and followed up by City staff that we would attempt in the future to try and round out the City boundaries in that portion of the City"s Sphere given that hopefully Section A would be annexed to the City. Again, that would leave those six parcels in Section C as the only parcels in unincorporated Orange County territory. Staff feels the time is appropriate to annex those properties to the City and that would complete annexations out in that area. Section D is presently within the City of Orange. It has a General Plan designation of Industrial and it is zoned M-l. The uses in Section D are divided between commercial uses and some wholesale/warehousing uses. Given Koll Company"s application on Sections A and B, and our feelings relating to Section D, we further felt that those properties in Section D should also be included in this area.. ~ The Phase I Koll project was approved earlier this year at the southwest corner of Orangewood and St. College Boulevard.- The property was annexed to the City of Orange. There was a General .Plan. Amendment to Major Commercial, a Zone Change to C-1, a Conditional Use Permit from the specific development plan,. The purpose of that Conditional Use Permit was because of the project"s adjacency to residential development, which happens to be in this application comprised of Sections A and B. And subsequent to those actions, there was a Parcel Map approved to consolidate the parcels in that area to abandon the interior street system. Those actions comprise the Phase T of the two phase Koll Center Orange project. The application on Sections A and B comprise the Phase IT project. There are no specific development plans proposed at this particular point in time; however, as indicated in the addendum to the original EIR that the Commission received, there is a conceptual site plan that indicates on the. Phase TT site the development of two 14 story office buildings on both. the north and south end of Sections A and B, with a six level parking structure in between. There will also be a 21 story office building built on the Phase T site. Although conceptual at this point in time, the total office footage of both Phase Z and IT would be approximately l.3 million square feet, which is a reduction from the original conceptual plans that envisioned somewhere around 2.4 million square feet.. The future on Sections C and D is a little less clear. It is evident that the Santa Ana Freeway is going to have to be widened at some point in time. There are no definite plans yet as to the nature, extent or timing of those improvements. Some of the alternatives that have been seen in fact would necessitate Cal Trans acquiring the parcels that right now front on Anaheim $oulevard. However, it will be some time before that takes place. Therefore, staff is looking, with the suggested actions on C and D, to make those areas compatible and consistent with Sections A and B of the Phase TT Ko11 project and the Phase I project in this specific area. And then in the larger area that goes up into the City of Anaheim; there is certainly an emerging Land use pattern that indicates Pl~.nning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 10. the area has transitioned from an industrial base to a more commercial/ office higher density use. Staff did have an addendum prepared to the EIR, which was sent to the City of Anaheim for their review. Staff has had a couple of correspondences with them both in writing and in phone conversations. In a letter dated October 30, it indicated the City of Anaheim had reviewed the. addendum to the EIR and based on the assumption that no modification to the mitigation measures that had originally been outlined in the original Koll EIR, if no changes were being considered, then they had no further comment. We indicated to them at this point in time we are not proposing any changes in the mitigation measures; however, it should be stated that we don't have any specific development plans that we are looking at now. When those development plans do come in, we will take a look at those in relationship to the mitigation measures originally certified in the old. ETR. Those mitigation factors will be applied at a scale that is commensurate with the scale of development on the Ko11 project. Staff is recommending the actions as stated in the staff report. ~ Commissioner Master questioned the procedure that when more specific plans are brought in to staff, would they come before the Commission? Mr. Reichert could not answer that question at this point in time. If there are no discretionary permits that would be needed, as part of that precise development plan, normally they would not come back before the Commission. They would only come back if there is a discretionary action or if the Commission chooses to make that a condition of this application. Commissioner Master commented there was another letter dated November 17, from the City of Anaheim for the record. The public hearing was opened. Steve Layton, Development Project Manager with the Ko11 Company, 4343 Von Karman, agrees with the rec©mmendations of the City. staff. Those speaking in favor: Norman Priest, Director of Community Development/Planning for the City of Anaheim, 200 .South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, is not in opposition to the development. .Believes it to be a good. development and wishes the City of Orange full success. Would like to make a request for the City's consideration that was raised a moment ago. In as much as the development is so closely in con3unction with that of Anaheim, we have worked closely with staff to date, that if the mitigation measures in the enviromnental impact report were scaled down or changed in some fashion, the action or that modification be brought back to the Planning Commission . Those speaking in opposition: Jim Capasso, 2828 N. Bristol, Apt.. 66, Santa Ana, represents one of the owners in Section C -- six lots in the unincorporated area of the County. Fifteen years ago we tried to become a part of Orange-and were turned - Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 11. down at that time. Also, now that the Ko1l Company owns all the other land, they didn't see fit to offer us anything for our particular section. I feel Section C should stay as it is. There is the possibility that the freeway will take us out so it would affect us anyway. Mike Sites, 8402 Sterling Drive, Garden Grove, property owner in Section C, would like to stay in the County. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Master commented the final design should come back to the Commission for review whenever those plans are submitted and the applicant wishes to go forward with them. Commissioner Scott concurs with Commissioner Master. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the Koll Center Orange Project Phase II Environmental Evaluation as part of the Original Ko11 Center Orange Environmental Impact Report 1018. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason ABSTAIN: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element as follows: Section "A" - Redesignate the area from County of Orange Suburban Residential to City of Orange Dfa.jor Commercial; Section "B" - Redesignate the area from Industrial to Mayor Commercial. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason ABSTAIN: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve a zone change as follows: Section "A" - Pre-zone Change from County of Orange R-1 to City of Orange C-1; Section "B" - Zone Change from M-1 to C-l. AYES; Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason ABSTAIN: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED • Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1986 Page 12. The Planning Commission felt it should be stated that the City Council refer the final design plan to the Commission for review. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element as follows: Section "C" - Redesignate the area from County of Orange Community Commercial to City of Orange Major Commercial; Section "D" - Redesignate the area from Tndustrial to Major Commercial. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason ABSTAIN: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve zone change as follows: Section "C" - Pre-Zone Change from County of Orange C-2 to City of Orange C-l; Section "D" - Zone Change from M-L to C-1. AYES: Commissioners Master, Scott NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason ABSTAIN: Commissioner Greek MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee stated all of these actions are recommendations to the City Council, There will be a. full public hearing once again before the Council and notification will be sent out to the same property owners who received notices of this evening's meeting. IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. Proposed Resolution for Naomi Mason: Planning Commission has made a motion to adopt a Resolution, Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution for Naomi Mason. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hart, Mason MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at ~:00 pRm„ to reconvene at a regular meeting on December 1, 19.86, at 7:30 p.m „ at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. /std