Loading...
07-05-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent Bill Cathcart Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie DeWees Jon Califf Thursday, 5 July 2007 Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Howard Morris, Sr. Landscape/Assessment District Coordinator Diane Perry, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 2 of 18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. REVIEW OF MINUTES: June 6, 2007 Chair Wheeler stated the minutes had been reviewed during the Administrative Session. A motion was made by Committee Member Woollett to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2007 meeting with revisions as noted. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. There were no items moved to consent at this meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 3 of 18 AGENDA ITEMS: 1. DRC No. 4175-06, MJSP No. 0483-06, & AA No. 0144-07 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY BRADEN HALL A proposal to demolish the existing Braden Hall and surface parking lot in order to construct a new residence hall that will accommodate 302 beds, dining commons, and conference facility over a single level podium parking garage. 550 N. Center Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Community Development Director Committee Member DeWees recused himself and left the room because he lives next door to Chapman University. Staff Associate Planner Doris Nguyen explained that this item was being reheard because it had been determined that a quorum had not been met at the June 20, 2007 Design Review Committee meeting. Ms. Nguyen then provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report stating that the applicant, Chapman University, proposes to construct two dormitories within their Specific Plan area. The new structure would include a single building that would be three or four stories tall in different areas over asingle-level podium parking garage. Staff recommends the DRC approve the project subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and any other conditions that the DRC deems appropriate. Ken Ryan, KTGY Group Inc., introduced himself and Kris Olson, representing Chapman University, and stated they appreciated the fact they were put back on the calendar for this evening. Mr. Ryan stated that Staff covered everything but wanted to state the following items for the record and added these were all long-term goals that were thought about in terms of the building itself: The use is consistent with the overall Specific Plan: residential uses in the residential area and the contextual architecture in terms of fitting in with the surrounding character of the neighborhoods. Pedestrian traffic minimized at Walnut and Center. Pedestrian traffic minimized because of the location of the food services on campus. Uplifting the kind of bunker-style architecture that's there today. Screening and hiding the Miller parking structure. Mr. Ryan stated they agreed with the conditions of approval that were added to the Staff Report same as at the last meeting. In response to Committee Member Cathcart's comments from the last meeting, they did do some research regarding the landscape, and because there's a Washingtonia Robusta immediately adjacent to the this project on the other parking structure, it warrants having the same tree and the same size/height at this location, notwithstanding the good recommendation to put the Washingtonia Hybrid filiarobusta into the future plant palette. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 4 of 18 Public Comment Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file, questioned what constitutes a quorum. He's attended Planning Commission meetings where there were the same circumstances, only three people and one individual was unable to participate but sat in and that was considered a quorum. Chair Wheeler asked for comments. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated comments should be made specifically about the project to the Committee. Committee Member Woollett explained his understanding of a quorum based on the Committee's previous experience. He asked the Assistant City Attorney for clarification. Chair Wheeler stated this item could be addressed in a future administrative meeting. Mr. Frankel stated he would try to attend that meeting. Mr. Frankel then questioned the potential influence on Old Towne regarding parking/traffic for the Conference Center. He asked how often the Center would be utilized, what type of conferences would be held, and were there required added parking spaces for the Center other than for the Residence Hall itself. Mr. Olson replied that during the school year the Conference Center would be used for internal University seminars and student-faculty gatherings so there would be no additional cars. During the summer conferencing season which starts in June and finishes at the beginning of August, it would be used as a true Conference Center; for instance, a church could rent out one of the dormitories, using the campus facilities, and giving them a Center to use for more professional conferences rather than having it in one of the University's smaller facilities. During the summer the students are not attending school so there's plenty of parking. Mr. Frankel asked what was the square footage of the Conference Center. Ms. Nguyen replied 70,840 sq. ft. Mr. Olson stated the occupancy was between 400-500. Mr. Frankel confirmed with the applicant that there would not be outside conferences during the school year. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated a concern for future reference regarding the campus where the plant palette in the Guidelines were not clear because at the bottom of each area they have left it up to the Landscape Architect to pick additional plants. He suggested it be taken into consideration "pedestrian scale on pedestrian areas so they use plant material that gives a more personal feeling to the pedestrian." In this case, the Washingtonia Robusta is too large for the space but since it already exists on the other side then not a problem. He also said the suggestion offered previously was a hybrid which was becoming used more for in-between planting palettes but stated all the other plant material used in the palette was excellent. Chair Wheeler stated to make sure the brackets on the eaves match what's shown on the rendering on page 14 rather than what's shown on the rendering on the cover of the book. The applicant replied that was the intent of the architect. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 5 of 18 Committee Member Woollett questioned Staff about the comments made from the previous DRC meeting. Ms. Nguyen replied they are part of the record as they are part of the actual minutes, however, an action could not be taken. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Ms. Nguyen that the comments were made and recorded, but the application was continued and what was said last time was still valid. Chair Wheeler questioned if it would be appropriate to make a motion to approve this item based on the comments made at the previous meeting" plus stating the comments made at today's meeting. Mr. Sheatz replied it would be helpful if they could read the actual comments from the last meeting along with this meeting's comments because the action last time was deemed an invalid action. Chair Wheeler asked for a copy of the previous comments. Committee Member Cathcart mentioned he would give the irrigation plan notes to the applicant to be placed on the plans as required by Community Services. Ms. Nguyen read the DRC's comments from the June 20, 2007 meeting: The increasing concern over the historical style of the buildings; integrating that style and using it as a transition style from the actual Old Towne proper to the areas outside of Old Towne. Whether it was appropriate to make it a more contemporary style but in the end the DRC agreed it was fine as it is as long as a certain kind of brace was used on the roof. The style was more interpretive than exact to the Craftsman style because such style was too large of a scale to depict an actual Craftsman style. The mechanical equipment for the conference center that sits in the middle of the roof would be covered. The Committee Members would have probably asked that the parking level be sunken lower if they had seen a preliminary design. Whether the height of the buildings was similar to existing dorms to the south and north. Landscaping, the Hybrid Robusta, and whether the existing (tree) suggestion was too tall. Senior Landscape/Assessment District Coordinator Howard Morris discussed the City inspection notes on the plans and the landscape plans. The planting was a suggestion. Chair Wheeler recalled there was a motion to approve with no other conditions, other than the conditions in the Staff Report. He also stated they discussed the contemporary design and his interpretation was that it was a contemporary building with the hints of remembrance of passing. Also discussed were the brackets and the palms. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC 4175-07 to the Community Development Director subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and with the conditions the Landscape Coordinator mentioned. He stated they wouldn't include the suggestion about the hybrid trees since already discussed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 6 of 18 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf RECUSED: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 7 of 18 2. DRC No. 4164-06 - ARTEMIO HOUSE REMODEL A proposal to expand the first floor and garage of an existing single-family residence and add a new second story. 904 W. Acacia Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He stated this item had been previously heard by the DRC in April 2007, and at that time the Committee asked for changes to the plan in order to resolve the following issues: Reducing the overall height of the stairway area. The Dutch gable roof style to be reflected on the addition. Ensure the windows and trim match existing or that the existing windows all be changed out to reflect the new style. All existing and proposed materials should be labeled on the plans. The fascia cuts need to be consistent. Staff believes this project meets the Committee's requested changes. Architect Gus Orozco stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Public Comment No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated the Community Services Coordinator wanted a note added that any new landscaping will have an automatic irrigation system. Chair Wheeler commented that it looked like everything had been done as the Committee had asked for. He suggested to indicate the finished treatment of the beam. Otherwise, it looked very good. Committee Member Woollett questioned if they were replacing the existing windows with vinyl windows. Mr. Orozco replied, "Yes." Another suggestion was to bring the stairwell down. Chair Wheeler commented he liked the way they maintained the theme of the original windows and the trim. It would now be more compatible. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 8 of 18 Committee Member Woollett questioned if the existing stucco will remain as is. Mr. Orozco replied, "No, in order to match, they will probably have to come back and redo it." Committee Member Woollett stated the existing building would have new finished stucco on it. Mr. Orozco replied, "Yes, because once all the windows are taken out and all the repairs done it will look patched unless it's all done." Committee Member Woollett questioned if they were going to provide more specification of the sand-finished stucco. Mr. Orozco replied that wasn't his intent. Committee Woollett stated there were different patterns and some are nice but others aren't so if left up to the plasterer they may not get what they want. He went on to suggest that Mr. Orozco be involved in the decision. Mr. Orozco agreed it would be subject to his approval. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the Artemio Lopez residence, DRC 4164-07, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett, Donnie DeWees NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page9of18 3. DRC No. 4194-07 - TRUJILLO RESIDENCE A proposal for an accessory second dwelling unit. 866 N. Olive Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He stated this item had been previously heard by the DRC in June 2007, and at that time the Committee asked for changes to the plan in order to resolve the following issues: Provide Landscaping in the rear paved area and planters if possible. An entry roof of some sort over the door for the proposed unit. NOTE: The applicant/owner, Ruben Trujillo, only uses English as a second language, so he will have Staff interpret for him throughout the meeting since Mr. Trujillo's designer wasn't able to attend this meeting. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the applicant that he thinks he has complied with the requests from the previous meeting. Public Comment No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated, in accordance with the City's Landscape Coordinator, to add a note on the plans providing that any new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system. Staff interpreted this to the applicant and he was in agreement with this. Chair Wheeler stated it would be appropriate to have minimal dimensions on the foundation wall planter strips as to how wide they should be. He asked the other Committee Members for recommended minimums. Committee Member Woollett recommended a minimum of two and one-half feet but 5' would be better. Chair Wheeler stated they had 14'-2" so if they took a total of 5' out of that, ending up with 30" on each side, they'd be at 9'-2" and that would comply with the 6' minimum separation between structures. Committee Member Woollett questioned how wide the main drive has to be. Mr. Garcia replied it must be 12'. The applicant currently has 20'-9" to the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 10 of 18 There was further discussion among the Committee Members and Staff regarding the planter width dimensions and the main drive. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the Committee Members that the planter on the second dwelling unit would be 30" (two and one-half feet). Committee Member Woollett stated the strip along the north property line could be 4', the planter could also be 4', the other one was 4', so that would equal 8' and the driveway would be 12'-9". Mr. Garcia confirmed with the applicant and he agreed it would be kept to the minimum of 4' on the side and 30" between the two structures. Committee Member Cathcart stated that would give the applicant more of a plant palette to chose from. There was further discussion among the Committee Members and Staff regarding the driveway. Committee Member Woollett questioned what would happen to the neighbor's yard and would it come right up against the driveway. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the applicant that there is a wall set in the middle of the property line all the way down. Committee Member Woollett stated there would be about 20" of dirt. Mr. Garcia replied in looking at the plans it appears there are about 2' to the edge of the building so he would assume 2' gets carried all the way down. Committee Member Woollett questioned how much of the driveway was new concrete. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the applicant that the driveway/concrete was existing and it's all the way over to the edge of the house. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Mr. Garcia that the applicant would be cutting out the existing concrete to put in the planters. Committee Member Cathcart stated the only planting to get into this small area would be bubbler sprinklers with espalier because there wouldn't be any kind of shrub to fit in this 20" space. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the applicant that he's agreeable to the 4' to 2' or one and one-half foot and also agreeable to the 4' to the resident's house and 30" between structures. Committee Member DeWees stated it means to taper it down to whatever is existing. Mr. Garcia agreed. Chair Wheeler stated it was a good job on the entry portico. There was more discussion among the Committee Members, Staff, and the applicant about plantings around the house, the location of the entryway, and the sliding doors. Mr. Garcia confirmed with the Committee Members that they are suggesting to carry a minimum 4' planter around. Committee Member DeWees offered a suggestion, although not part of the Design Review Committee requirements, that some interior doors could be backed up to a location that would be considered "a dead area" and then the doors could swing into a small alcove and the room would be larger. Mr. Garcia explained this to the applicant. Mr. Garcia confirmed again that the front area would be a 4' minimum. Committee Member Woollett suggested to line it up with the front of the house where the front door is. Mr. Garcia explained this to the applicant. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 11 of 18 Committee Member Woollett moved that DRC 4194-07, Trujillo Second Dwelling Unit, be approved in accordance with the conditions provided by Staff and including the following additional conditions: 1) The standard landscaping notes added onto the plans. 2) Revisions to the landscape areas as described. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett, Donnie DeWees NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 12 of 18 4. DRC No. 4250-07 -THE AULD IRISHER A proposal to enhance a portion of the facade on an existing concrete tilt up building in the Stadium Promenade to resemble the exterior of an Irish pub. 1547 W. Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Staff Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and stated this was a proposal for an Irish pub and restaurant in the Stadium Promenade center. This restaurant would occupy about 4,500 square feet in a vacant 10,000 square foot building. The proposal is to add facade additions and outdoor dining. The existing building looks like a concrete tilt-up type of building that formerly served as a classic car garage. Although not included in the Staff Report, the applicant brought samples of the outdoor dining tables, chairs, umbrellas, and section of railing to be used. There is an existing sign program for the center and signs for this restaurant will be submitted separately to Staff under the existing sign program. Architect Bill Reseigh, HMR Architects, referred to the plan's south elevation for exterior work. He explained that there is an existing lift-up sectional door that will be turned into windows. The intent was to bring the new work down to more of a pedestrian orientation. The building is quite high and they wanted to draw attention to the project facade without going outside the existing approved color elevations (for the building). Chair Wheeler stated the plans looked like they showed one of the freestanding columns of the canopy. Mr. Reseigh replied the columns on the canopy are basically 6" square and match the trim that goes around the windows so it's all contiguous, the same trim, all painted within the color palette that was approved by the landlord. Committee Member DeWees asked the architect how the facade trim would be built on the existing building plaster walls. He specifically inquired if the adhesive trim would be watertight. Mr. Reseigh replied it's trim work that's on top of the existing plaster and the wall itself is waterproof. He asked if the Committee Members were concerned about water-resistance on the other side of the building and explained that it was water resistant right now. Public Comment No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Woollett questioned if the light fixtures were going to be repainted or covered over. Mr. Reseigh replied they were pieces of the inset, not lights. Committee Member Woollett stated there was the up here. Mr. Reseigh replied that the the insets that appear to be lights are the same the insets that appear on the columns. Committee Member Woollett stated it City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 13 of 18 had a frame around it, looked like all the same white glass. Committee Member Woollett questioned the light fixtures sitting up on the parapet of the building, angled downward, and presumed there would be lighting underneath the canopy. Mr. Reseigh replied, "yes, under the canopy and on the two columns" and no exterior lighting for signs. Stadium Promenade Property Manager Robert Srehn clarified there were no exterior lights on the existing building. There are no parapet lights or surface-mounted lighting on the existing building but there are music speakers that everyone mistakes for lighting. The lights on the roof were temporarily installed during construction before the new lighting was installed. Most of the temporary lights have been disconnected, removed, and are not part of the lighting scheme. Chair Wheeler asked if the building materials are imported from Ireland. Mr. Reseigh replied, yes. The applicant, David Copley, of The Auld Dubliner, LLC, confirmed everything, both interior and exterior, was from Ireland. Chair Wheeler asked if they minded having an Irish Pub with a palm tree out front. They replied, "only in Southern California." Committee Member Woollett stated that his experience with painted wood in large surfaces doesn't do very well in this climate as it doesn't seem to last and it fades. Mr. Copley agreed it does require maintenance/yearly review, and they are willing to do it. It's more of a "wow" factor, trying to get the customer's attention as they walk in. The cost of maintaining it once a year is worth it. Committee Member Woollett questioned if it's going to be apparent that it's wood. Mr. Copley replied, "yes." He stated it's not a flat one-coat of paint; it's a mottled aged look and the corners are a little darker than the center post so it looks like it's been there for hundreds of years. Committee Member Woollett questioned if it would be apparent it was grain. Mr. Copley confirmed the idea was to make it look really old. Committee Member DeWees stated his concern again about the exterior wall and what the trim is really going to look like with all the indentations and elevation relief on the plaster wall. Mr. Copley replied it more or less just sits on top of the wall as opposed to fitting into it. They're not removing any of the stucco itself and they're keeping the integrity of the building sealed. Committee Member DeWees stated if it was being built onto the exterior wall they would have to go into the wall and do something to flash it, otherwise they would end up with flashing. Mr. Reseigh replied that the trim is probably only 3/a" deep. Committee Member DeWees stated that the trim will get jogged around and will start to get sloppy. It starts getting jagged edges and it's not coming in clean in any one spot. Flashing will jump up and down especially at a lower scale. If it's up high you can't see it but now it's only up about 12'. He questioned what it will actually look like once they start putting flashing in. With all the little things jumping up and down it starts to draw attention to flaws. He was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 14 of 18 instinctively worried about water damage but it's not the Design Review Committee's concern for purposes of this meeting. Mr. Reseigh replied they have constructed the trim elsewhere before and they've maintained it, so if the concern is about seeing the flashing it's not their intent to flash it, they intend to maintain it; the wall is waterproof. Committee Member DeWees stated the wall was water resistant. Committee Member Woollett stated the stucco itself wasn't waterproof so if the water goes into the stucco then it's going to be inside the building. Committee Member DeWees questioned how the facade would be applied. Mr. Copley replied it's literally a piece they bolt into some of the structural supports with nearly three bolts and sits right on top of the stucco. Committee Member DeWees questioned the material. Mr. Copley replied there's a metal flashing across the top that already comes with the entire facade, it's already covered and it goes right on top so they cap the top of the facade with a metal casing and sit it right up against the wall. Committee Member DeWees stated his concern again that they're going to be building the facade into the plaster. Mr. Copley replied it would be on top of the plaster. Mr. Reseigh stated they aren't removing any of the plaster. Committee Member DeWees questioned how they were going to flash the top of the facade without getting into the plaster. Mr. Copley replied they aren't flashing onto the plaster itself, they'll just be sealing the top of the wood itself and sealing all that up as one piece onto the plaster. Mr. Reseigh showed the Committee Members where it would be on the plans. Committee Member DeWees stated they should check with the property manager about it, especially the south facade. He didn't understand why they didn't get rid of the plaster and come in with some counter flash. Mr. Reseigh replied they would counter flash the canopy where the roofing is but he didn't think it would work on wood trim. Committee Member DeWees stated it was their call and his concern was what it will look like, what will really end up being on top. Mr. Reseigh replied it will look clean if they do it in their shop; if they do it on site it probably won't look that good. He agreed the concern is justified but they are aquality-controlled shop. The rest is a waterproofing issue between them and the owner. Committee Member DeWees agreed. Chair Wheeler stated this was a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Staff replied that was correct because there's a Conditional Use Permit being processed with it for alcohol and live entertainment. Chair Wheeler stated all the conditions in the Staff Report are valid except the Old Towne standards and design criteria shown on page 4 are not applicable to this project. Committee Member Cathcart concurred. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 15 of 18 Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of DRC 4250-07, The Auld Irisher, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett, Donnie DeWees NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 16 of 18 NOTE: Prior to the adjournment of the meeting Mr. Sheatz addressed the Committee Members regarding the rehearing of Item No. 1/DRC 4175-06 -Chapman University/Braden Hall and also stated he would have a conversation with Mr. Frankel regarding forums and issues. He thought Mr. Frankel's question wasn't necessarily project-related and that it had a bigger picture/much larger scope to it. Regarding Item No. 1, the issue was that when the one Committee Member had a conflict, he had to recuse himself and leave the room when there were only three Committee Members at the meeting. Three is the quorum so when that Committee Member left, there was no more quorum in the room to have the meeting. Therefore, every action after that wasn't a valid action because there wasn't a quorum of three members in the room. There's a way of taking action on an item with three members when one of the members can't participate but has to maintain himself/herself in the room to keep the quorum and that's called "rule of necessity." It's very fact-driven as to how it's applied and the bottom line is it's only applicable when the body that's hearing the action is the last body/last resort to hear it. Mr. Sheatz stated he doubted if the Design Review Committee would ever have a "rule of necessity" situation and would very rarely, if ever, have it with the Planning Commission. It would only be on items with the Planning Commission where, for instance, state law would require a recommendation on a General Plan Amendment. If there's a situation where the Planning Commission must act where it's driven by state law and one of the members has a conflict when there's only three that can participate, the "rule of necessity" would then apply. It's most common with City Council because they are the very last body. If the DRC couldn't act on it, the Planning Commission could act; if the Planning Commission couldn't act on it, then it would go to City Council, so there are other alternate avenues. He went on to explain that in the situation regarding Item No. 1, the person that gave the advice probably thought the "rule of necessity" applied but in this instance it didn't. When the Committee Member left the room, that split/destroyed the quorum and that's why it had to come back. He also stated this specific concern was brought up by one of the Council Members via email question to the City Attorney's office and the City Manager's office. Committee Member Woollett questioned that since three are a quorum, if three people are present then an action can be taken even if one person doesn't vote, regardless of whether there's a condition of necessity or not. Mr. Sheatz replied that he couldn't think of an instance where the "rule of necessity" would apply to this body. Committee Member Woollett stated under normal conditions if there were three people in the room who are on the Committee, you have a quorum. Mr. Sheatz agreed. Committee Member Woollett then questioned if all three have to vote. For example, there are three Committee Members, it's time to vote, and one has to abstain. He questioned if that nullifies the vote. Mr. Sheatz replied if the reason for the abstention was a conflict where the member had to recuse himself, then the member shouldn't have been in the room to begin with. He stated again if it's outside the "rule of necessity," it doesn't apply. For this Item No. 1, had it come up, if there were three people here, and one of the Committee Members had a conflict/couldn't participate and didn't realize it ahead of time (although it's always best if looked at ahead of time), he would call Staff to state the reason for not being able to participate City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 17 of 18 on the item. Everyone would then have time to react. Committee Member Woollett replied that Staff tells the Committee Members because they check it. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated the problem is that Staff doesn't always know. Staff knows by where the member's work is located and by where the member lives but there have been a couple of instances where a couple of the Committee Members had worked with Chuck Yaghi on projects before, so those are things Staff wouldn't know. Staff doesn't know who the folks are that the members work with on an everyday basis. Committee Member Woollett agreed. Mr. Sheatz gave an example of a project coming in with only three Committee Members present and one member just realized he would have a conflict of interest due to a past or present relationship with the applicant. This would mean the member couldn't participate. In such situation the Committee would need three people to maintain the quorum, three people present to be able to take the action. Once it was realized that one of the members had a conflict, one of the two members would need to move to continue the item to the next meeting. If Staff was notified ahead of time, they could move it to a continued item. But if it came up right then, three need to be present, so one member says to continue it until they have three people that can actually participate on the matter. The other member can second it, vote on it, and there are three people there with only two people voting. Ms. Roseberry commented Chair Wheeler, Committee Members Woollett and Califf had probably become accustomed to this when they were the only three Committee Members for quite awhile, before Mr. DeWees and Mr. Cathcart became DRC Members. She mentioned there were quite a few situations like this where there was a conflict. The three members would stay in the room so there would be a quorum and they would only have two voting. It's different now when there are a full five. Committee Member Woollett stated that based on the rule that's presented to them now, the Committee Members should not have voted. Chair Wheeler said Staff stated that was a different situation because now there is a full body. Committee Member Cathcart stated there were only three before. Ms. Roseberry agreed. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood then if there were only three, a quorum is two. Mr. Sheatz replied "no." He had checked the Code, and done so for the Planning Commission also, to see if there were any other rules that govern how the body acts. He stated he couldn't find anything other than in Code 17.08.020, which goes through certain basic items about the Commission; that it shall consist of five members and the quorum is three: "For purposes of this body, the quorum is three." Even if there were only three members appointed, it would take all three to establish a quorum. If there were only two members, there would never be a quorum. In those old instances where there were only three members, for whatever reason, and it wasn't a majority of the members that were appointed to the Commission, it's three. Committee Member DeWees stated it would be three, not 60 percent, just the number three. Mr. Sheatz agreed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 5 July 2007 Page 18 of 18 Mr. Sheatz stated that in the very last section of that Code, Rules and Regulations, it says "The Design Review Committee shall adopt and amend by the affirmative vote of three members Rules and Regulations for the conduct of the Committee's business consistent with this Chapter, subject to approval by the City Council." He mentioned he's been here almost seven years so maybe this was done "way back when" before he came to the City. There was similar language for the Planning Commission; for instance, has the Planning Commission done this, has the City Council passed off and approved something like this for conduct at their meetings. He asked Mary Murphy, City Clerk, to research and their office came up with nothing. Mr. Sheatz confirmed for the Committee Members that there were no rules that establish conduct outside of what had been stated here. In such instance they would then rely on The Brown Act and similar documentation. Committee Member Woollett commented that he would be leaving his present location as of September 30 and assumed as of that date his proximities related to projects would change. Mr. Sheatz agreed. Ms. Roseberry replied that if he relocated somewhere else in Towne, Staff would need that address to make sure there would be no conflicts. Chair Wheeler stated they were clear on this matter and wouldn't need to have this addressed at a future administrative meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Joe Woollett Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett, Donnie DeWees None None Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED.