Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/8/1982 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange Orange, California February 8, 1982 Monday, 7:30 p.m. A special meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Ch airman Mickelson at 7:45 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none STAFF Jere P. Murphy, Administrator of Current Planning and Commission PRESENT: Secretary; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; John Lane, Administrator of Advance Planning; Jim Reichert, Associate Planner; and Doris Ofsthun, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: CONTINUED HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED LAMPLIGHTER MOBILE HOME PARK TENANT RELOCATION PLAN. After the Commissioners reviewing the various pieces of correspond- ence given to them in connection with this item, Chairman Mickelson opened the public hearing. Brent Swanson, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Kennedy, responded to a letter sent by John Nicks, addressing himself to the last paragraph of the first page, wherein Mr. Nicks s tated that depre- ciation will only affect about 5 or 6 home owners who were the last to buy into the park. Mr. Swanson stated that this is not a true statement, referring to Alternative #2 of the Revised Tenant Relocation Plan, which states there are a total of 17 homes which will be affected. He pointed out that Mr. Nicks' statement on page 2 of his letter stating that all new mobile homes that are now sold are put on the property tax rolls is a true statement. However, existing mobile homes, which are those occupying the Lamplighter, continue to pay the eq~uival ent fee now to Housing Community Development, rather than the Department of Motor Vehicles, based upon the depreciation schedule which, although is not identical, is not dissimilar to the depreciation schedule which they have sugaested i n thei r original plan. Therefore, in fact, these older mobile homes are "taxed" as though they were a depreciating asset. Mr. Swanson also stated that it is not true that they will not purchase the homes unless they receive approval of thei r zoning request. It is not the intention of the applicant to pit one resident against the other by depreciating the homes at 1 4% per month . H e fel t th i s was evidenced by the al ternati ves offered which would eliminate any type of distribution of relocation moneys on the basis of the value of the resident's home. They would prefer to see the Commission adopt the plan which took the approach of not distributing moneys on the basis of the value of a home, because that makes i t much simpler from an administration standpoint and eliminates many of the headaches which might otherwise result. ~~~ explained that there has been a depreciation stop date placed i n the al ternati ves, which i s December 31 , 1981 . Mr. Swanson then addressed himsel f to the statement i n Mr. Nicks' letter that the income from the park is approximately $150,000 per year. He pointed out that the park is now barely breaking even, based upon normal operati ng expenses . Profit from the park has never been i n the bracket which has been suggested. Rents s Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Two would have to be raised significantly higher in order to keep the park open. He then explained that mobi 1 e home parks are bui 1 t to different standards . He felt that Mr. Nicks' statement i n this regard was inaccurate. Older mobile home parks are built to lower standards. He pointed out that Mr. Kennedy has spent $2400 recently to repair breaks i n the pipes i n the streets and was told that the pipes are corroded and would have to be replaced. Regarding Mr. Jantz' letter of February 4, 19 82, Mr. Swanson thought that essentially he was saying that the tenants would like to have more money and Mr. Jantz thought Mr. Kennedy could pay more. Mr. Swanson explained that Mr. Kennedy had received a letter from the bank to the effect that they will not lend him any more money for this project. He felt that Mr. Jantz was in error in a number of statements made in his memorandum and he brought these up be- fore the Commission. He brought up as an example, statements in Mr. Jantz' letter to the effect that relocation costs would be an almost impossible burden to overcome. However, the first 50% of the population that has al ready relocated without the applicant's direct assistance did not seem to have any particular problems. He pointed out that he was told of two people who moved out just recently to other mobi 1 e home parks i n Orange County . He fel t that with the assistance of the coordinator the other people in the park will be able to find homes in the area. Mr. Swanson reiterated that the money which has been mentioned be- fore is all there is. The money available to each of the tenants is $6,366. This is significantly higher than what has been given i n other mobi 1 e home parks under these same circumstances . Th i s relocation program stands on its own without regard to the appli- cant's ability to pay. He brought up that rents in this park have been significantly lower than any other parks and, consequently, the residents have benefited from this point. Mr. Swanson said that he is very disturbed by the comments that the applicant is not concerned for the residents. He does not think that the facts bear this out. They have attempted to deal too forthrightly with the issues and that has caused other issues and problems. Mr. Swanson asked for approval of their revised plan so that they can get down to the business of relocati ng these residents. He pointed out that the three alternatives are adequately explained in the memo presented to the Commission. He then asked for questions by the Commissioners. Commissioner Vasquez asked for clarification with regard to the first page, paragraph 3, "...that change is to eliminate the condition that residents who do use the services of Mrs. Julia Bond, the Relocation Director, will not receive the additional $200.00 payment...", asking if the $200,00 were included in the tenants' payments. Mr. Swanson replied that it is included in Alternative #1 and by implication in Alternatives #2 and #3. He explained this in greater detail to Commissioner Vasquez, by stating that there are three payments under the plan. The first is $3,000, the second payment originally would have been $1500, now i t wi 11 be $1700. In addi ti on, they are asking residents to try to sell thei r home themselves . If they are unable to sel 1 their home for at least $5,000, the applicant will make up the difference between what is paid for the home and what they pay them. If the applicant sells the home for more profit, he will give this profit to the tenant. Commissioner Vasquez asked fur- ther questions with regard to the amount stated in Alternative #1 and Mr. Swanson went into further detail as to how this figure is broken down. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Three Commissioner Hart questioned the economics in the operation of the park i n that the rents that have been charged were somewhat lower than market. Mr. Swanson replied that, at present, rents area minimum of $50.00 under the market. Th i s dispari ty i n rents over the years, he felt, amounts to about a half million dol 1 ars . Commissioner Hart explained that Mrs . Toni Carl ton sent some information to the Commission on mobile home prices and park rentals and he would like comparison figures. Chairman Mickelson explained that there had been correspondence Sandra McMillan and Toni Carlton of Santiago Realtors. He then gave a copy of this correspondence to Mr. Swanson to read. Mr. Swanson explained that the structure in the Lamplighter is different than in other parks, in that most other parks in the area and in the state are individually submetered and charged for the use of gas . Thi s is included i n the rent i n the Lamp- lighter. Therefore, his rent rate, which is about $184/mo for single wides, should be adjusted downward because of the gas rates being included in it. Commissioner Hart said that this figure seems lower than most other parks in the county. Chairman Mickelson asked for clarification under Alternative #1 with regard to the figure of $6,366, plus whatever the tenant sells his coach for, the more valuable coach would sel l for more and the less valuable for less. Under Alternative #2, the tenants would receive $4700, assuming the General Plan Amendment is approved, plus a guarantee of $5,000, fora total of $9700 and more, if the coach is worth more. Mr. Swanson said that this is correct. Chairman Mickelson then pointed out that under Alternative #3, which is similar to Alternative #2, except that each coach would be evaluated on site and be assigned a pro rata share of the total sum for coach repurchase, so that there would be $4700 plus a sum based on the individual value of the coach . Mr. Swanson agreed that this also was correct. Chairman Mickelson wondered, under Alternative #3 if the figure could be less than $5,000. Mr. Swanson admitted that he had not worked out these prices and did not have an answer. Chairman Mickelson felt that this was a possibility. Mr. Kennedy also admitted that this could be a possibility. Mr. Swanson explained that under Alternative #3 you are taking $75,000 and dividing it among 45 residents. This would be in addition to the amount for which they sell their mobile homes. He thought that most residents would receive at least $5,000. Alternatives #2 and #3 are quite similar, but the disadvantage to Alternative #3 i s that even by putting the subject of appraisal i n the hands of the residents, inevitably there would be arguments among them. The primary advantage of Alternative #3 is that all tenants are put on the same footi ng. Vincent Jantz, supervising attorney for the Senior Citizens Legal Advocacy Program, 2700 N. Main, Santa Ana, and also representing the tenants in Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission, stating that perhaps the amount of money being paid to the tenants should have some direct correlation to the loss that they receive. He felt that the Commission will have to wrestle with this every time this kind of thing comes before them. This will not set a precedent. H e explained that when he suggested looking at the applicant's books, during the last public hearing, he did not have any wish to pry into his private business. Since the last meeting, he and the tenants have discussed the plan pre- sented by Mr. Swanson. The tenants received the three alternati ve plans last week. He thought that the Alternative #3 price will ~ cause problems because it will pit one tenant against the other. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Four He pointed out that Alternative #1 does not suggest repurchasing. Therefore, if Alternative #1 were decided upon, those people who have recently purchased their mobile homes for higher prices would have less chance of recouping their losses. Mr. Jantz explained that at both tenant meetings which he attended it was 100% consensus that the plan should have two parts to it - one a lump sum and the other a repurchase by the park owner of the coaches, if they qualify for the plan. He pointed out that Alternative #2 contains these two items. He thought that Alternative #3 presents several problems. If the Commission is satisfied with the applicant's statement that he has no more money, then there is no more to talk about. There will be a loss suffered by these tenants. Mr. Jantz thought that Alternative #2 presents a movement in the right direction in that the $200 allowance for the relocation director i s i ncl uded , as~ i t i s i n Alternative#1. Also, a date has been set for the depreciation to end and this takes off pressure from the tenants. However, they would like to see one more move on the part of the owners and that is that the last date for moving out and the last date for getting benefits will be the same. He would 1 i ke to see some 1 anguage to the effect that the tenants can receive some money on November 15th, or a later date, if all requirements have not been met by the owner of the property. Mr, Jantz pointed out that in this particular instance someone will lose money. The owners indicate that they cannot do anything to alleviate thi s because they do not have sufficient capi tal to over- come it. This must be left up to the Commission. Commissioner Coontz asked if Alternative #2 was, in part, suggested by Mr. Jantz and he replied in the affirmative. Chairman Mickelson asked about the statement regarding the date of benefits to be received being the same date as the moveout date and Mr. Jantz reiterated his statement in that regard, pointing out that the way the statement reads at this time if the tenant fails to move out by November 15th as the last date, they will not be able to get benefits under the plan. He is suggesting that, if possible, if all of the steps necessary to convert this property might not be completed by November 15th and, in that case, people could by law remain in the park, then when the final affidavit is received, the tenants should be given a 60 day notice to vacate. If they vacate on that last day, they should be eligible to receive their money. Commissioner Hart asked under that plan with regard to removal would they forfeit their benefits voluntarily if they choose to remain after that date? Mr. Jantz replied in the affirmative. If this were the case, those tenants remaining would be in default. He pointed out that if, by some chance, everything were to be pushed through much sooner than the November 15th date, they would still want to stick with that date as the cutoff date. He explained that these tenants are currently paying a very low rent and most of their coaches are paid for. To require them to move before they must adds insult to injury. The mobile home park cannot be used for anything else during this period, Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Swanson to respond to this statement. Mr. Swanson replied that they could not comply with this type of request. There is a cost to operating the park and the cost of Conti nui ng to operate i t i s i ncl uded i n the rel ocati on benefits . If the applicant continues to operate the park, this takes away from the relocation budget. They could also be forced to make major repairs during this time, which would be costly and un- necessary if they could get the tenants to move out. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Five Chairman Mickelson asked for Mr. Swanson's interpretation of the requirement that tenants could stay in the park 60 days after the approvals were received. Mr. Swanson explained that they were in disagreement as far as Mr. Kennedy's ability to close the park and not receive any approvals from the city. It would still be his position that, if forced to do so, the appli- cant can close the park without seeking any approval from the city. He felt that they have paid a great deal of attention to the scheduling situation and the additional time period is some- thing that they are extremely concerned about. He felt that they had dealt with the issue of the last moving date at the last meeting. John Froelich, addressed the Commission, stating that his mother lives in Space #3 in Lamplighter. He said that in late December the applicant had spoken to him regarding the original offer which was 1 % depreciation per month. He explained that his mother had purchased a 1973 double wide mobile home for $25,000 in October of 1979. Mr. Kennedy told him that if he could find some suitable lodging for his mother she would receive, after depreciation, about $18,000, plus the $3,000 in his offer, plus a possible additional $1500, for a total of $22,500. His mother was not too unhappy with this sum. However, it takes time to move an elderly person to another location and now, the way he sees it, under the new plan, his mother has just lost another $5500. He pointed out that they are now getting to the point where the tenants are starting to fight against each other. Karl Bjork, Space #2, Lamplighter, addressed the Commission, agreeing with the last speaker that they are starting to work against each other. He saw the only changes in the Alternative Plans as being the $200 and the cutoff date. The other alterna- tives are not even acceptable. He thought that the majority will profit because their coaches are old. The newer and double wide coaches will be losers. They are being penalized because they do not want to count the double coaches. Mike Newell, speaking fora relative living in Space 53, Lamplighter, addressed the Commission, stating that he realized that the Com- mission has a difficult decision to make between those residents who have been there a long time in older coaches and those in newer, doubl e wide coaches who came later. When he moved hi s uncle i n he realized the park was quite old and he asked the manager if there were plans for the park to be sold or closed. The manager's answer was no. He moved his uncle in, figuring that if he lived i n the park for 5 or 6 years they would break even. He moved i n in April, 1980 and in August the word came that the park would be closed. He felt that the decpreciation plan first submitted would work the best for residents like his uncle, who moved into the park so late. Alternative #2 probably represents the most equitable solution for his uncle. Chairman Mickelson asked if he had compared his calculations with Alternative #2. Mr. Swanson responded to the speaker by stating that Alternative #2 does not change the depreciation schedule and would not affect Mr. Newell's uncle. He explained this alternative more clearly, stating that they can find an equivalent home for this man right now for the amount of money the man will receive. Isabelle Kays stated that Mr. Swanson has dropped $500.00 from the original price of $3500 which was paid to the people who have already left. Referring to Alternative #3, she pointed out that they speak of having a broker come in to appraise the coaches. Brokers do not appraise, they go as low as they can. She pointed out that the older coaches were only worth $5,000 and these people wi 11 come out even. People 1 ike her, who paid up to $20,000 or Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Six more for their coaches will not make out so well. Chairman Mickelson explained Alternative #1 more clearly to Mrs. Case. Mr. Swanson also pointed out that Mrs. Case would get $10,312 for her mobile home, plus $4700, which would total $15,012 under Al ternative #2. Mr. Jantz brough t up another way of calculating these figures, which would bring the amount to be received by Mrs. Case to $11,500 plus $4700, fora total of $16,200. Mr. Swanson then tried to explain the $500 figure to Mrs. Case, who insisted that thi s was deducted from the original figures . Chairman Mickelson explained that if the city turns down the General Plan Amendment, the applicant coul d not borrow the amount of money needed and she would receive $1500 less. The repurchase plan is condi tinned on the General Plan Amendment. In the event the people moved out and the General Plan Amendment is not approved, they would not receive the second payment. Yvonne Cranston, President of American Association of Retired Persons in Orange, #3108, addressed the Commission, speaking on behalf of Clara Aston, who purchased a coach for $32,500. She explained that the coach is now 11 years old and was purchased by the Astons in August of 1980 and moved into in September. of 1980. In October, 1980 they received a letter that the park was going to be sold. Ms. Cranston explained that Mr. Aston is now i n Long Beach Veterans Hospital , i n a vegetabl el ike state and Mrs. Aston, who does not drive, takes the bus to Long Beach regularly to see him. They would like to know how much Mrs. Aston would re- ceive, having lived in the park for 16 months and purchased a double wide coach for $32,500. Ms. Cranston also pointed out that a t the last meeting a request was made to follow up on people who had already moved from the park. She said that she is turning over letters from former residents of the park to the attorney for the Lamplighter. Wanda Haines, a former resident of E1 Mira do r, addressed the Commission, stating that 90 homeowners were displaced from that mobile home park in the name of progress. The land still stands empty for people to remember. When housing is so critical these mobile home communities are self sustaining. When a community has flood, earthquake or fire disasters, surrounding communities come to their aid. However, in this type of disaster, no one seems to care. Commissioner Hart addressed Mrs. Haines, stating that he resented her statement that no one cares. Dale Smith addressed the Commission, stating that the only thing these three alternatives leave out is the human element. We have laws to protect wild burros, save the whales, etc. But there are no laws to protect people living in mobile home parks. We seem to stick to the Golden Rule, we allow those who have the gold to make the rules. He explained that he knows of two industries that have moved out of Orange because they could not locate affordable housing for their employees in this area. If all of these mobile homes are allowed to disappear, it will aggravate an already bad situation. Chairman Mickelson stated that if he had his way he would like to have the money we spend on savings the condors, etc. to spend on '~- housing. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Seven John Nicks, whose parents live in Space 4, in the Lamplighter, addressed the Commission, explaining that the rent in the park, including gas, was $189.50 to $196.50. The park behind them pays $146.00 to $149.00. Another park nearby is renting spaces for $158.00. With regard to the depreciation schedule of $14%/mo., there is an example in an earlier memo which is done on a declining balance. This is the example we should be using unless there is a change. Regarding the three alternative plans, he thought that there is some confusion among some of the people because of the complexity of these plans. In Plan #3 the question was asked if they got $4700 plus $6,000? On the second page of Plan #3 they are talking about $286,500 as a total. Therefore, the people will not get $4700. Mr. Swanson explained that in Alternative #3 they have $75,000 allocated to repurchase over and above the $4700 everyone would get. This can be divided according to the formula stated i n Al ternati ve #3. Mr. Nicks disagreed with this statement and asked for more clarification. Chairman Mickel son explained this in greater detail to him and Mr. Nicks said that the amount of money offered is not adequate. He felt that if the applicant cannot come up with more money he cannot afford to redevelop the property. There must be some solution found for these people to continue to be self sufficient. He then spoke to the date of moving out. It is stated in the Civil Code and also in the termination notice that no one will be required to vacate until all permits have been obtained. He wants to see this rule imposed. Bob McMillan, whose parents reside in Lamplighter, addressed the Commission, drawing attention to the repurchase plan of January 13, 1982, with regard to the 14% depreciation. He was not in agreement with the example and wanted more clarification. The way this is interpreted can mean $3,000 to some of these people. Mr. Jantz stated that this is the point he is trying to get across regarding the declining balance. With regard to the termination date, if the park is closed by November 15th then the tenants must move. However, if it is not closed they should be allowed to stay. Commissioner Master asked Mr. Jantz to clarify his position, asking whether the given plan is acceptable if the percentage is right and if the proper date is approved. Mr. Jantz replied that he is trying to get as much as he possibly can for the residents. He thought that the calculations discussed tonight should be made for each plan and then given to the tenants so that they can make a final determination. He pointed out that many of the people living in the park could not attend tonight's meeting and some had to leave early. He thought that a final report needs to be made to all of the residents. Mr. Swanson stated that the $14,000 figure in the plan submitted to the Commission comes from a declining balance. They will stick with this approach, which is the more favorable one to the residents. He then made further clarification on some of the questions asked by the people addressing the Commission. He pointed out that the Astons would receive, under the depreciation schedule, $26,000 plus $4700, for a total of $30,700, leaving a cost of $278.50 to rent a home since August of 1980. He also pointed out that the rental figure quoted for the park behind Lamplighter is incorrect. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Eight Mr. Nicks pointed out that the Commission has heard from a number of residents who will come out close in this situation. Approximately 5 or 6 residents fall into this category. The rest of the people will not come out anywhere near. Anyone who has been in the park for a number of years will not come close. Linda Kelly, addressed the Commission, explaining that she is the daughter of a resident of Lamplighter, and according to her figures Alternative #l would give her mother $11,366, which would be to her advantage. Alternative #2 would give her $9,700. Chairman Mickel son explained that there should not be any difference between Alternatives #1 and #2. Ms. Kelly explained that her mother would be better off with Al ternative #1 . Mr. Swanson explained that this resident has lived in the park since 1970 so she does not fall in the depreciation category. He was told that she paid $8,000 for her coach. She would come out ahead under this plan. There being no one else to speak for or against these plans, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Master commented that he was not sure that if they talked to the 40+ people still left in the park that they would not get 40 different observations. He was hearing statements this evening with regard to each individual case. He felt that a matric should have been provided. He thought that the input was fragmented because they do not understand what it means. Commissioner Vasquez had some of the same concerns that Commissioner Master had. He agreed with the statement made that the figures have been just shuffled around. He did not think the Commission meeting was the place for calculating figures and thought that there is much confusion and misunderstandings. Commissioner Coontz did not see the Commission as being the body which passes on statements given to them by the Staff. She felt that there have been many work sessions and meetings on this item and the meeting tonight was a very beneficial one. The Commission must act sooner or later and she did not see that there should be a delay any longer. She felt that Alternative #2 appears to be the most equitable of the three plans. This plan seems to do the most for the most people. Commissioner Hart felt that this is a difficult decision. The Commissioners disagree and there is no fair decision for either the applicant or the tenants. He also leaned toward Alternative #2, based on the statements made tonight. Chairman Mickelson spoke to the matrix suggested by Commissioners Master and Vasquez, feeling that there would have to be 45 calcula- tions. The amount of money was stated in the very beginning and how it is juggled is up to all concerned. He also agreed that Alternative #2 was the best plan, acknowledging the fact that the rest of the tenant relocation plan remains in effect. Commissioner Vasquez stated that his comments with regard to the juggling of the money was merely an observation. He would make a decision with reservations. However, he was frustrated by the fact that the people have not had enough time to digest what is before them. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Nine Commissioner Coontz asked for more information with regard to the problem of an open ended date. Mr. Minshew then spoke to this issue, stating that the tenants would be eligible for the benfits of whichever plan is decided upon until November 15, 1982, or until the requirements of Civil Code Section 798.56(4) have been satisfied (which means getting all of the permits, etc. which are required) and that the 60 days' notice required by the Notice to Vacate has expired, whichever occurs first. Chairman Mickelson pointed out that this type of wording could be before November 15th and this is not acceptable to Mr. Jantz. Mr. Swanson responded that the Civil Code language seems to refer to the requirement that the 60 day notice be tied to the dis- cretionary permissions which they are required to receive from the local government. This would not only entail the General Plan Amendment, it would also entail the zoning change, which is the next step, and it could also tie itself to other discretionary approvals. In theory then, they could be extended for some sub- stantial period of time and it would be impossible to operate the park for that period of time. It is not an alternative for the applicant. There is a real health and safety issue that arises when you are dealing with a park that is almost empty. Chairman Mickelson reiterated his statement of last meeting that he is concerned about leaving the date open ended for several of the reasons which Mr. Swanson raised. This whole thing could be dragged out for a long period of time and end up with a few resi- dents hanging on until the end, at a detriment to themselves. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to accept Alternative Plan #2 for the repurchase plan, with the remainder of the relocation plan as submitted previously. Commissioner Coontz made the suggestion that whatever is worked out that the Staff would go over and reconstitute the plan so that it is one package and is more easily understood. Mr. Minshew asked what the final date is and was told that it would be November 15, 1982. This would include the 60 day notice which would be given by the applicant. John Lane suggested that the applicant, or his representative, prepare the .consolidated relocation plan, rather than staff. Chairman Mickelson asked Mr. Minshew if the final wording could be submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting and Mr. Minshew saw no problem with this. The motion was amended to state "...approval of the relocation plan as submitted with the final date of November 15, 1982 and with Alternative #2 as submitted in the February 5th memorandum for the repurchase plan; consolidated document to come back to the Com- mission for final review at the next regular meeting. AYES: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Vasquez NOES: Commissioner Master ABSENT: Commissioners none MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Master commented with regard to his vote, that the Commission has seen two valiant efforts on the part of the applicant to get alternates approved. However, they were not received until Friday afternoon before a Monday meeting. This does not give Staff enough time to make a proper presentation to the Commission, plus the fact that those who will be impacted by this, were not given much time to digest it and understand it. He felt that the timing was rather inappropriate. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1982 Page Ten Commissioner Coontz commented that we must recognize that there are opposing forces in that, as has been stated, both lawyers were reviewing the material. It is a combination of forces. Commissioner Vasquez commented that this whole process has been a very sad operation in terms of communication and keeping the people informed. It has left a lot to be desired and he would hope that procedurally, in the future, that something can be done to insure that what has happened over the last several months would not happen again somewhere else. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m., to be reconvened to a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 17, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. C`~ J • EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ORANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 8, 1982. A special meeting of the Orange City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mickelson at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Mickelson, Hart, Coontz, Master, Vasquez ABSENT: Commissioners none Moved by Commissioner Coontz, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that this meeting adjourn at 10:30 p.m, on Monday, February 9, 1982 to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. 4~ednesda;i, February 17, 1982 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. I, Jere P. Murphy, 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 special meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, February 8, 1982. Dated this 9th day of February, 7982 at 2:00 p.m. Oer P. Murphy, C;i Nlann~r ana Sec etary to the P1 nning Commission of the City of Orange. i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER SS. OF ADJOURNMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Jere P. 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 a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange was held on February 8, 1982; said meeting was ordered and adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment attached hereto; that on February 9, 1982, 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 the said meeting of February 8, 1982 was held. ~~~ ~ ere P. Murphy, Secret