Loading...
Council Minutes 03/08/11APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 22, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA March 8, 2011 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on March 8, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 4:30 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING 1.1 INVOCATION Given by Rev. Stephanie Toon Glassman, First United Methodist Church 1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Councilmember Denis Bilodeau 1.3 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau ABSENT - None 1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS Presentation of MADD Deuce Awards. Presentation by the International Code Council, Orange Empire Chapter of Building Officials recognizing the City Council for their continued support and commitment to building safety and recognizing Building Official David Khorram as 2010 president. Library Foundation presentation on Children's Garden. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Lisa Ball, South Coast Air Quality Management District provided Council with a State of Our Air 2011 DVD. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3. CONSENT CALENDAR March 8, 2011 All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion approving the recommended action listed on the Agenda. Any member of the City Council, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion or separate action. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, all items removed shall be considered immediately following action on the remaining items on the Consent Calendar. 3.1 Confirmation of warrant registers dated February 17 and February 24, 2011. ACTION: Approved. 3.2 City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting of February 22, 2011. (C2500.D.4) ACTION: Approved. 3.3 Waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda. ACTION: Approved. AGREEMENTS 3.4 A Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Orange, Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Santa Ana, and the State of California Department of Transportation for Inter - jurisdictional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project along Bristol Street /State College Boulevard corridor. (A2100.0 Agr -5727) ACTION: Approved the Memorandum of Understanding; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City. 3.5 First Amendment to Cooperative Agreement No. C -9 -0243 Between the Orange County Transportation Authority, the City of Orange, and the Orange Redevelopment Agency for Parking Capacity Expansion at the Orange Transportation Center. (A2100.0 Agr - 5437.1) (See related Redevelopment Agency Minutes Item No. 3.3) ACTION: Approved First Amendment to Cooperative Agreement No. C -9 -0243; and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amendment on behalf of the City. PACE 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) BIDS 3.6 Bid No. 101 -30; Approval of plans and specifications, and authorization to advertise for bids for construction of Storm Drain Improvements in Palm Avenue, Cambridge Street, and Santiago Canyon Road Project. (C2500.M.17) ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids. (REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY) 3.7 Approval of Request for Proposals (RFP) for Landscape Maintenance of City Parks and Recreation Trails, and Authorization to advertise for proposals. Discussion - Councilmember Whitaker asked about contract compensation; and clarified with staff the amount of the general liability insurance. Councilmember Dumitru requested inclusion of background checks on the successful bidder's employees working in the parks. MOTION - Whitaker SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Moved to: Approve RFP and authorize the advertising of an RFP with the direction to change the contract provisions for a flat compensation for two years with CPI increases in ensuing years capped at 3 %; increase the general liability to $2 million; and verification that no 290 registrants are working on the contract and that all employees working have gone through e- verify. (REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY) 3.8 Approval of Request for Proposals (RFP) for Landscape Maintenance of City Facilities, Medians, and Rights of Way; and Authorization to advertise for proposals. Discussion - Councilmember Whitaker stated that with the concurrence of Council he wanted the same provisions discussed for Item 3.7 to be in this contract as well. MOTION - Whitaker SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Moved to: Approve RFP and authorize the advertising of an RFP with the direction to change the contract provisions for a flat compensation for two years with CPI increases in ensuing years capped at 3 %; increase the general liability to $2 million; and verification that no 290 registrants are working on the contract and that all employees working have gone through e- verify. PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 3.9 CLAIMS (C3200.0) SUMMARY: The following claim(s) have been received and investigated by the City Attorney's Office and /or the Risk Manager. After a thorough investigation with the involved departments, it is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that the claim(s) be denied. a. Thomas McConnell ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster. MOTION - Smith SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Items 3.7 and 3.8 were removed and heard separately. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR CAVECCHE - None 5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 5.1 Councilmember Dumitru — Pursuant to Government Code Section 36801 — request for vote on reorganization of City Council. Councilmember Dumitru stated he wanted to follow state law and agendize this for the next council meeting. Mayor Cavecche stated she was happy with the current Council organization. MOTION - Dumitru SECOND - Bilodeau AYES - Dumitru, Bilodeau NOES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche Moved to agendize on the March 22, 2011 City Council agenda. (MOTION FAILED) PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 7.1 Building Plan Review and Inspection Fees Charged on Photovoltaic (P.V.) Solar installations. (C2500.J.1.0.1) Discussion - Councilmember Bilodeau requested staff survey other cities' practices to determine whether they are requiring P.V. Solar installers to include a turn off switch; and if not, bring back to Council for reconsideration of a previous action to require this costly feature. RESOLUTION NO. 10540 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange amending the Master Schedule of Fees and Charges for Plan Review and Inspections for Photovoltaic (P.V.) Installations. MOTION - Smith SECOND - Whitaker AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Moved to adopt Resolution No. 10540. 7.2 Commitment of federal HOME Investment Partnerships funding for the proposed Serrano Woods Apartments to be located at 1820 East Meats Ave. (C2500.G.1.9) (See related Redevelopment Agency Minutes Item No.7.1) NOTE: This item was considered after Item 10.1 Discussion — Sr. Housing Manager Mary Ellen Laster gave the staff report, noting the per unit subsidy cost is $137,335. She provided scenarios in the event of the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies, as to how the funding would be handled. She reiterated that the City's commitment is for the housing set -aside funds and HOME funds, and if the funding is not available the commitment is null and void. Councilmember Bilodeau expressed concern about utilizing HOME funds given the Governor's proposal to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies and possibly establishing the effective date of that legislation back to January. City Attorney David DeBerry noted that if a contract is in place it would not be cancelled. Councilmember Whitaker stated that this project is a solid financial endeavor, speaking to the loan to value ratio. Pare 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued) MOTION - Smith SECOND - Whitaker AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche NOES - Bilodeau ABSTAIN - Dumitru Moved to: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute letter regarding the Loan Commitment of federal HOME funds in the amount of $1,369,527 for the proposed Serrano Woods Apartments 2) Authorize the transfer of $1,234,527 from the following accounts to account 317.9660.56571.20090 (HOME — Serrano Woods — East Meats Loan) for the project: • $195,225.75 from account 317.9660.56510.11210 (HOME Community Housing Development Organization [CHDO] funds) and • $1,039,301.25 from account 317.9660.56510.11250 (HOME Developer Funds) 3) Appropriate $135,000 from unreserved fund balance of the HOME Fund to account 317.9661.56571.20090 (HOME -HOME Program Income - Serrano Woods -East Meats Loan). 8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 9. LEGAL AFFAIRS 9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 01 -11 (SECOND READING) (A2500.0 False Alarms) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 9.04 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to False Alarms. MOTION - Whitaker SECOND - Smith AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Moved that Ordinance No. 01 -11 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote. PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS March 8, 2011 10.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2010 - 0002), ZONE CHANGE (ZC 1257- 10), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2803 -10), MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW (MJSP 0639 -10), DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC 4504 -10), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM 0027 -10), AND MITIGATED NEG. DEC. (MND 1824 -10) SERRANO WOODS, 1820 EAST MEATS AVENUE. (C2300.E GPA- 2010 -0002) Time set for public hearing to consider construction of 63 rental apartments (62 affordable) in four buildings with a 27,240 square foot footprint and associated site improvements on a 3.93 acre site that currently has a turf field, a Church and school building, and accessory modular classroom buildings. The accessory modular buildings would be removed but the Church and an associated parking lot would remain separately on a separate parcel created under a parcel map that is part of the project. Discussion — Community Development Director Alice Angus gave the staff report. She responded to a question from Councilmember Whitaker and explained the process for addressing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers from the State; that the state would look at the city's progress and programs in place if numbers were not met, and that if the City did not meet the numbers, there could be a penalty. Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb responded to questions from the Council, stating that the channel running along the project is not covered, and that a 6 -foot block wall will be constructed in that area. He also explained that the residents will have electronic access devices to gain entrance, and that visitors will have to call in to gain access, but the Fire Department has emergency access through the church property. He further informed the Council of a one -foot setback behind the laundry room, and that there are windows providing visibility into the laundry room. He explained parking availability for the church is not counted toward the project numbers. Mrs. Angus answered a question from Councilmember Dumitru stating that one on- street parking space was being lost due to an enhanced entrance. THE MAYOR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Speakers - Faridon Karamati, spoke in opposition due to noise, pollution and congestion issues; Cathy Seelig, Friendly Center, which operates a Learning Center at church, spoke in support; Rob Currington, Pastor, spoke in support; George Metsovai, spoke in opposition due to parking issues. Barry Cottle, Developer, spoke on the plan to address graffiti, occupancy limits, crime, strict qualifications to be met by residents, and that having no garages will mean less clutter, and therefore, result in more parking opportunities. In addition, he spoke on storage areas, and that the laundry room will have set hours of operation and key access. He further explained the enforcement of occupancy limits using tax returns and other documents. PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) THE MAYOR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilmember Bilodeau stated that C & C Development is a great developer of affordable housing; but expressed his concern for the parking issues in the area and stated that visitors and possible inadequate parking at the church may compound the issue. He clarified with staff that this project would not interfere with a proposed Meats Avenue / SR 55 interchange and that there were no immediate plans to widen Park Lane. He expressed not being able to support the project due to the parking problems. He stated regret for the immediate need for a decision on the project due to tax credit deadlines, and that he would have liked more time to address the parking. He also noted this property was not identified in the recently adopted General Plan as an area for affordable housing and an area to meet RHNA numbers. Mayor Cavecche agreed there is a parking problem in the area, noting that the nearby homes with garages should be using them for parking cars instead of storage, adding that the City should be looking at enforcement; but did not want to punish this property owner for issues caused in surrounding developments with parking. Councilmember Dumitru spoke to the traffic study; and also clarified with staff that there exists a pro forma analysis and requested it be provided to Council; that it should have been provided with the project packet. He noted it was a good project, but agreed there were parking issues in the area, including at the church; and clarified with staff that the School District was aware of the project but did not provide any communication. He stated that in the future he did not want to have to consider projects that did not have an option to be continued due to deadlines. Mayor pro tem Smith stated her support for the project and agreed that C & C Development is the best affordable housing provider. She commented that with this project, neighbors may be motivated to clean up their garages and use them, thereby lessening the parking problem in the general area, and did not believe this project would further contribute to the parking issues. She stated that Orange provides a complete spectrum of safe, attractive housing, including housing for the work force community, and this project would help in contributing to RHNA numbers. Councilmember Whitaker stated his agreement with the previous comments and that this is a well - planned project with a lot of detail that will serve to enhance the neighborhood. He added his concern for the neighborhood parking problem, but that this project offers a parking plan that exceeds the code. PAGE R CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) RESOLUTION NO. 10538 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration 1824 -10, and General Plan Amendment 2010 -0002 reclassifying property from Low Medium Residential 6 -15 du /ac (LMDR) to Medium Density Residential 15 -24 du /ac (MDR) upon property located at 1820 E. Meats Avenue. MOTION -Smith SECOND - Whitaker AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru NOES - Bilodeau Moved to approve Resolution No. 10538. ORDINANCE NO. 07-11 (FIRST READING) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange approving the reclassification of property from Single Family Residential (R -1 -8) to Residential Multiple Family (R -3) located at 1820 E. Meats Avenue. MOTION -Smith SECOND - Whitaker AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru NOES - Bilodeau Moved that Ordinance No. 07 -11 be read by and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote. RESOLUTION NO. 10539 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit 2803 -10, Major Site Plan Review 0639 -10, Design Review Committee 4504 -10, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 0027 -10) and, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement with two Affordable Housing Concessions to allow for the construction of 63 housing units located at 1820 E. Meats Avenue. MOTION -Smith SECOND - Whitaker AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru NOES - Bilodeau PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 11. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 12. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed at 9:40 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes: a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: City Negotiators: City Manager John Sibley and Human Resources Director Steven Pham & Human Resources Manager Mike Harary Employee Organizations: All Bargaining Units b. Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation. Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in Closed Session. PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7:00 P.M. SESSION 13. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 14. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None 15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT March 8, 2011 15.1 APPEAL NO. 0528 -11 — DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4508 -10 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 185 -10, LOCATED AT 626 W. CULVER AVENUE. APPLICANTS: PETER & HEATHER WESTENHOFER (REPRESENTED BY DOUG ELY, ARCHITECT). APPELLANT: OLD TOWNE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION. (A4000.0 APP - 0528 -11) Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request to construct a 450 square foot one -story rear and side addition to an existing 617 square foot Bungalow, located at 626 W. Culver Avenue. Discussion - Community Development Director Alice Angus gave the staff report. In response to a question from Mayor Cavecche, she stated that homes in the Old Towne district whether they are under the Mills Act or not, must comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Speakers — Ms. Michelle Carder, representing Old Town Preservation Association (OTPA) spoke of the issues of concern with the project, including procedural issues, submittal of documents not provided to appellants, inadequate review by lower bodies, and that the addition does not comply with standards. She suggested that OTPA could either litigate this issue, attempt to delist the property in the Historical Register, or, which they would prefer, offer to fund an independent analysis by a neutral party. Mr. Doug Ely, Architect for homeowners, spoke on the project, noting the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) in this neighborhood is 3.5, and that this remodel will have an FAR of 3.4. He addressed areas of the appeal: 1. The homeowner is removing only 10.5 feet of siding; 2. Project found to be in compliance to Secretary of Interior Standards by Design Review Committee and Planning Commission; 3. Planning Commission did not have issues with size and administrative adjustments. 4. The project is not in breach of the Mills Act contract. 5. Will allow for the bolting of the foundation. He further provided a document citing Secretary of Interior Standards acknowledging reasonable changes. Page 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) The following persons spoke in support of the project: Sharon Westenhofer Byron Smith Peter Westenhofer, homeowner Heather Westenhofer, homeowner Mr. Ely, referencing staff reports and minutes of previous Design Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings, read favorable assessments and comments on the project made by commissioners stating it was sympathetic to open space, it possessed character defining features, and that it met Old Towne Design Standards. He noted the Design Review Committee motion was to approve the project subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and the Staff Report referenced the Secretary of Interior Standards. In response to questions by Mayor pro tem Smith he pointed to drawings to show the 10.5 linear feet of siding being removed, with the remainder covered by the new addition, the 18 square feet of overlap on the roofline, and the plans to relocate windows and replace an aluminum window with a wood window. Ms. Carder reviewed the reasons for the appeal by OTPA: 1. The original plan was to remove 31 feet of siding - that the current plans were submitted after the appeal was submitted. 2. The Design Review Committee did not make required findings. 3. The remaining siding is being covered with new construction. 4. The Planning Commission addressed only the standard of reversibility; there was no analysis of standards 2 through 5. She noted the Secretary of Interior Standards are minimum standards. She further suggested that other alternatives have not been considered, that there has been no compromise from the Applicant, and reiterated that the process has not been properly followed. Mayor pro tem Smith noted the subject house was built in 1923. Mayor Cavecche asked Ms. Carder to explain her contention that the process in handling this project was different than other projects. Ms. Carder stated the required findings were not made, and that this has been an ongoing problem. Councilmember Dumitru noted the appeal may be invalid, as it addresses a removal of 31 feet of siding, but the plans actually show it to be only 10 feet removed and 21 feet covered with new construction. PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) Councilmember Whitaker agreed and read from the Planning Commission minutes which reflect a removal of 10.5 feet - that the design change was made at the Planning Commission meeting. He noted that new plans would not have been submitted if the changes were made at the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor pro tem Smith asked if OTPA wanted to withdraw their appeal. Ms. Carder responded that they did not; and reiterated the confusion with appealing the plans that were originally submitted. City Attorney David DeBerry stated a resolution would have come back to the Planning Commission outlining all the findings, except the issue was appealed. A Resolution will come back to the Council with findings. MOTION - Whitaker SECOND - Dumitru AYES - Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau Moved to deny appeal on the grounds that the Design Review Committee said that based on conditions in the staff report, that the project is in compliance with the Secretary of Interior standards; and the Planning Commission deliberated and created a design that meets guidelines. Comments by Mayor pro tern Smith Secretary of Interior Standards are not met if the following occurs: if proposed changes would require a change or alteration so radical that the character defining features would be compromised to a point where the structure no longer conveys its historical value. I do not believe that the proposed changes are going to convey that this tiny little 1923 bungalow residence is not a tiny 1923 bungalow residence. It still comes in at about 1,000 square feet, which is small. It was included as a contributing structure in the district, at a little over 600 square feet, and the addition of 400 square feet, in my opinion, has not changed it. The changes that are being proposed by the Planning Commission are clearly listed in the minutes on page 15 of 28, when Mr. Knight, who is staff, stated staff understood what would be maintained and what would not (referring to the plan). He stated a long gridline, being the existing wall, would be maintained. Siding would be removed, the non - contributing aluminum door would be removed, and the wall would be removed. The wall that would be removed would be the wall that split the new bedroom and would be the only portion that would be completely removed. That was called out earlier at the 10.5 feet area. PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) Also, the question of the roof line pitch complying. The exact same roofline pitch is applied to the added roofline, it only overlaps in the whole roofline at 18 square feet, which to me is extremely insignificant. It's not visible from the street – the addition. And the original exterior wall is still visible from the interior. I'm going to tell you about my house, which was built in 1888, with no indoor plumbing. Somewhere, when indoor plumbing was added, out in the back in our guest bathroom, the exterior siding is still on two of the walls, because all they did was build two more walls on the back corner of the house and put the bathroom back there. The exterior walls have been there for 122 years on the interior of our house, so if the purist wanted to come in and take that bathroom off, they still have the original footprint of the house. I want to propose that this is not an unusual occurrence in Old Towne. If you want to use the restroom on the back porch of many of the houses you will see that two of the walls are the exterior walls. I don't think that this addition changes the character of the house, it's a nice design, and you can't see it from the street. In addition, I don't know what we have overlooked all these years when room additions have been put on the back of houses. We've let people take off the exterior back siding of the houses and second stories have gone up, back walls have gone away and rooms have been added on to the back, a second story up. I just don't understand what all the fuss is on this particular house, because for many years, in compliance with our Design Standards and Secretary of Interior Standards, projects have taken away far more original material than is being removed from this house. Councilmember Whitaker: My original laundry porch is gone because of our addition that was put in with Design Standards. Mayor pro tem Smith: There you go – total transparency on the Orange City Council. And was that something you wanted to do, probably not. But if we're going to maintain the economic viability of our neighborhood and have livable houses, some of these things have to be compromises. In terms of the Secretary of Interior Standards, and I won't read all of them, but there's always going to be loss of historic fabric when you do a change. You're always going to lose something; in this case it's very minimal. It's not a radical change. I will agree that there were many fouls along the way, this process should have gone much more smoothly, and for that I apologize to both the applicant and to OTPA who are very vigilant stewards of our historic resources here in Old Towne. But let's face it, this is a tiny little addition on the back of a house and it is not going to make or break either our historic district or the Mills contract. We have to be careful and I've mellowed as a preservationist myself. Preservation doesn't mean no change — preservation means preserving what you have in a sensitive way — looking back to what we had and being able to re -use for the future. Otherwise, the option that I will propose at the end of every conversation is: there is nothing to preclude the Westenhofers from demolishing this house and starting over. PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) So, would you rather have the house demolished and a new built there or can you sacrifice 10 feet, 6 inches of the wall and allow an 18 square foot overlay on the roof? Finally, I would like to say that I think it's very sensitive of the Westenhofers to make this house, even at its small size, earthquake proof. Part of their Mills Act contract is to bolt down the foundation, so this little bungalow won't fall down. That is the epitome of sensitivity to historic preservation. They are going to bolt down the front part and make the second part earthquake proof as well, retrofit it. So I think that's quite admirable. The finding meets reversibility, which means that if somebody wants to come back and go to the original structure they can peel off the new build, and the little bungalow is still going to be there, add back 10.5 feet, replace that 18 sqare feet on the roof and there it is again. So I am in favor of your proposal, your motion and your second; I just wanted to put a little bit of support behind it. The last thing I'd like to say is something I want to address to OTPA. It's not a secret in town that I'm one of the co- founders of OTPA — 26 years ago, and I would much rather see that the third option that OTPA provided tonight to solve this problem would have been moved up to the first option. The absolute last thing that we should be looking to do as neighbors is litigate against each other because we want to build a home in Old Towne. And, I think the offer of OTPA to pay for an outside historic consultant could have come a lot earlier in the process. It probably would have saved a lot of grief for all parties concerned. Litigation should be last on the list. And to OTPA, you have great expertise, you have wonderful members, you have financial resources, and I get the feeling that you need a project, just given what you brought forward on this one. So I'm going to suggest that you spend your energy educating our community even more, and try to get some more people to retrofit their houses and bolt down the foundation so that all doesn't fall down when the big one hits. Why don't you take a look at the St. Vincent DePaul building on Almond as a project? Get a consultant in there to see how that building could be preserved. Or get those Nutwood Foundation monuments rebuilt. That's what OTPA should be spending it's time and money on, in my very humble opinion. I'm only venturing out because of my intimate association with the group in the past. So with that, I'm happy to vote to deny the appeal and hope that it's a lesson learned for all us. PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 8, 2011 16. ADJOURNMENT — The City Council adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. Declaration of City Clerk, Mary E. Murphy, declaring posting of City Council agenda of a regular meeting of March 8, 2011 at Orange Civic Center kiosk, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, and the Main Public Library at 407 E. Chapman; all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of said regular meeting; and available at the Civic Center City Clerk's Office. M Y URP CITY CLE PAGE 16