2010 - May 3Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
1 of 38
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
May 3, 2010
Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Marie Knight, Community Services Director
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Whitaker opened the Administrative Session @ 6:49 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No. 1, CUP Extension, Chair Whitaker asked if there were any questions on the item
that was on the Consent Calendar? There were no questions.
Item No. 2, Old Orange Brewing Co., Commissioner Cunningham stated he would have a
few minor questions. Commissioner Merino stated he would have a question for the
Police Department representative. Chair Whitaker asked if a representative from the
Police Department would be available. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated
Sergeant Peterson would be available for questions.
Item No. 3, Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, Chair Whitaker stated it would be a long
evening with a lot of Public Comment and he would follow the Staff's presentation with
the applicant's presentation and move onto the Public Comment portion of the hearing;
allowing 3 minutes for each person to speak. There could be 150 people and the meeting
could go on all night, he would have a cut off of the meeting at 11:00 p.m. and asked if
there was any opposition to that decision? There was none. Chair Whitaker stated he
would ask the public present, who chose to speak, if they were in concurrence with a
previous statement that they could just state that and not have a need to come forward and
he hoped that would get them through faster. Commissioner Steiner asked what the next
date for the meeting would be if the item was continued? Chair Whitaker stated he would
want to continue to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Planning
Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated if the applicant was seeking a continuance for
further fact finding, it would be dependent on that time frame, as well as if the Planning
Commission was asking for further information on how quickly that information could be
gathered. Chair Whitaker stated if the meeting would be continued due to the large
number of public speakers, he would want to continue to the next meeting date.
Page 1 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
2 of 38
Commissioner Merino asked, with questions for Staff, would the Commissioners be able
to exhaust their questions and then move on to the next Commissioner? Chair Whitaker
stated he would want to have each Commissioner ask a few questions then move on to
the next person, to cut off at approximately 3 questions then go back around if there were
further questions and any follow up questions the Commissioners might have. Chair
Whitaker stated there might be an attempt from people in the audience to ask questions or
speak out during the public comment portion of the meeting and they would not engage
in any dialogue with the audience. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated he had
received a comment regarding the video recording of the Planning Commission Meeting
that if several Commissioners spoke at once it came across as static and he reminded the
Commissioners to speak through the Chair. Assistant Community Development Director
Ed Knight stated he had 1 item for housekeeping; on the upcoming California
Preservation Conference if any of the Commissioners wanted to attend they would need
to respond to Jackie Bateman by May 4, 2010.
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
Page 2 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
CONSENT CALENDAR:
May 3, 2010
3 of 38
(1) TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2708-08;
MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0537-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE N0.4301-07 -MARKET BROILER RESTAURANT
A request to extend the entitlements to construct a new 653 square foot outdoor patio
dining area, in which the general on-site sale of alcohol may occur, in association with
the existing Type 47 licensed restaurant.
LOCATION: 20 City Boulevard West, Building J, Suite R-6
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve a three year time extension to CUP 2708-08, MNSP
0537-07 and DRC 4301-07.
Commissioner Imboden approved time extension for CUP No. 2708-08, MSPR No.
0537-07 and DRC No. 4301-07-Market Broiler Restaurant.
SECOND: Commissioner Cunningham
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 3 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
New Hearings•
May 3, 2010
4 of 38
(2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2772-09 -OLD ORANGE BREWING
COMPANY
A proposal to obtain a Type 23 (Small Beer Manufacturer) Alcoholic Beverage Control
license to operate a small beer manufacturer facility with an accessory tasting area for
customers to sample and purchase the specialty beer.
LOCATION: 1444 North Batavia Street
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facility).
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-10 approving
the allowance of a Type 23 ABC license to operate a small beer
manufacturer and to allow an accessory tasting area with limited
hours.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the item to any questions for Staff. There were none.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Jerry Nine, address on file, stated he was excited to open a draft brewery in Orange.
There were 4 owners and they had been life long friends since they were kids and always
had a dream of opening a brewery in Orange. Now that they were all about 40 years old,
they were attempting to make that happen. They looked forward to bringing good draft
beer to the City and surrounding areas.
There is an item in the Staff Report for consideration. On page 4 under Analysis
Statement of the Issues; Issue No. 1, the last sentence of the issue stated that food would
not be available, which is not a problem. Additionally, it read that there would not be any
tables or chairs for seating. During tastings, patrons could be served tastes of five 2
ounce beers and when selling that to someone, it had not made sense not to have a place
to set their tastings on and have a seat. At times they would be conducting classes on the
brewery process and they wanted chairs for those occasions. They were not asking for
the place to be filled with chairs and tables, but possibly half a dozen tables and chairs
would be fantastic. Everything else looked good in the proposal.
Commissioner Merino stated they were provided with a chart for the project and a floor
plan and he asked if the applicant could point out the Tasting Room.
Page 4 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
5 of 38
Mr. Nine stated the tasting area would be located in the front of the building. There was
a big roll up door at the front of the building and that area would be used for tasting, the
front third of the building. When tasting was not occurring, that space would be used for
loading and deliveries, a fork lift would have access from that door. The tables and
chairs would be moved from that area.
Commissioner Merino asked what a tasting consisted of.
Mr. Nine stated they would brew 5 beers that would be on tap, a bar type area would have
the serving tanks which were big steel tanks with lines that came out. A person could
choose a tasting of the beer of their choice and there would be a cash register there for
purchase of a tasting. A person would be inside the brewery to talk to other people and
view the tanks and that would be what a tasting was comprised of.
Commissioner Cunningham had a question for Mr. Garcia. He stated there was nothing
in the Conditions that prohibited tables and chairs and if the Commission decided to
accommodate the applicant, would there be a need to change the Conditions or could they
be left as written?
Mr. Garcia stated there was not a condition prohibiting that and the Conditions could be
left as written. The Commission could add a Condition limiting the number of tables and
chairs allowed.
Commissioner Cunningham stated as the resolution was written there was not a
restriction for tables and chairs.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino asked the applicant at what point would a tasting become drinking
and was he prepared to address a situation where a person asked for more and was he
capable to regulate the business for purposes of sales and not drinking?
Mr. Nine stated the purpose of the business was to sell beer to restaurants and bars
throughout Orange County and Los Angeles and to get potential customers to visit their
business to sample beer and for the public to sample the beer as well. It was not a bar
and they had not intended it for that, they had very limited hours and it was not feasible
that it would become that type of situation.
Chair Whitaker asked for the Police Department representative to come forward and
stated at wineries, at the most, there would be stools or tall tables without chairs and he
asked if the Police Department had wanted to add a Condition with respect to that
situation or had the hours of operation taken care of any concerns?
Sergeant Peterson stated the hours of operation limited that.
Mr. Nine stated he wanted to thank City Staff as they were very easy to work with and.he
also thanked the Police Department.
Page 5 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
6 of 38
Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion or an action.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adopt PC 10-10, CUP No. 2772-09-Old Orange
Brewing Company, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the
item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Imboden asked the Assistant City Attorney, regarding the question of
tables not being conditioned; he wanted to ensure that they would not be setting up the
owner for an issue of what was in the Staff Report was what had been approved. He
believed they all had a consensus that they were fine with the manner in which it was
written; he wanted to ensure the business owners' protection.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated if it would be brought to them, he would
interpret it in the same manner as the Commission had. If the City received a concern
regarding tables being set up at the business, he would look to the Conditions before the
Staff Report was reviewed.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 6 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
7 of 38
(3) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1788-07, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-0001, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1243-07,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0019-07 (ALSO KNOWN AS TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 17167), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5600, MAJOR
SITE PLAN NO. 0496-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
4207-07 - RIDGELINE EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
A proposal to develop approximately 51 acres with 39 equestrian oriented residential
units on 39 minimum one-acre lots with 34 of the lots accommodating private equestrian
stables. The project also proposes an equestrian ride-in only arena, open space,
approximately one mile of public and 0.7 mile of private trails, private streets, site
landscaping, and development of supporting infrastructure necessary for project
implementation.
LOCATION: 1051 N. Meads Avenue
NOTE: The environmental impacts of the project and its project
alternatives were evaluated through Environmental Review No.
1788-07 (DEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2007091107) which was
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15070 et seq and in conformance with the Local CEQA
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-10 recommending
that the City Council (a) certify the adequacy of Final
Environmental Impact Report 1788-07, (b) adopt Findings of Fact,
(c) adopt a State of Overriding Considerations, and (d) adopt
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-0001, Zone Change 1243-07,
Tentative Tract Map No. 0019-07, Development Agreement No.
5600, Major Site Plan No. 0496-07 and Design Review Committee
No. 4207-07 to allow for the construction of 39 residential units on
minimum one-acre lots, a public ride-in only equestrian arena,
approximately 1.7 miles of trails.
Chair Whitaker stated the Commissioners were present as representatives of the City,
appointed by the City Council and present to hear public input. The only manner in
which they would be able to hear everyone would be to have patience with each other and
to adhere to the public speaker time limits. There would be a Staff Report, the
applicant's presentation and discussion period between Staff, the Commissioners and
applicant prior to the public comment portion of the meeting. He asked that there not be
cheers, calling out, yelling or things that would distract them from hearing the discussion.
He appreciated the courtesy they would show and he would demand that for everyone
that would speak before them. One of the things was that each member of the public who
had turned in a public speaker card would be allowed to speak for 3 minutes. He had a
stack of cards that was quite large and during the Administrative Session, the
Commission had determined that after 11:00 p.m. that the Commissioners would not~be
Page 7 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
8 of 3'8
as competent as they currently were and after 11:00 p.m. if the item was still going, he
would close the hearing and continue to the next meeting if they were still in the public
comment portion of the meeting; or it could be continued to a later date if there were
questions or materials that would need time to be gathered. He would call the meeting at
11:00 p.m. to ensure that they had a rational debate and that it would not be 2:00 a.m. and
someone would not have their faculties about them. There would be a hard stop at 11:00
p.m. and he would call for a restroom break during the meeting. He stated that when
leaving the chambers to ensure that the doors were closed as they exited to avoid
interruption of the meeting; if people were standing they were allowed to enter the
Weimer Room and view the meeting on the TV that was available there. He asked for a
reading from Staff.
Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the item for any questions to Staff.
Commissioner Merino stated that they had acknowledged, during the Administrative
Session, that the Commissioners would each get a chance to ask questions and not
necessarily work through all the questions at once, but to go around and give everyone a
chance; he had 4 foundational questions and he had a few for the City Attorney. He
asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, could they condition or act on each issue
separately, rather than to deal with the recommended action as a single approval?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino stated he understood that the OPA Board had an advisory capacity
for projects, however, on the Ridgeline project that had not occurred as there had been an
issue and asked for clarification on their role in the project?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct regarding the OPA Board. Several years ago they
were eliminated as a City Council appointed Board or Commission and stood on their
own in an advisory capacity on projects that came through their area. On the current
proposal, the relationship that developed and deteriorated between the developer and
those members of the OPA Board created a situation, hostile would be the most
appropriate term, between the developers and some members on the Board that caused
review by the City Attorney's office. That review caused them to not require review by
the OPA and not have the developer go through that process which had been customary.
It was primarily for due process reasons. The applicant was entitled to fair, impartial and
unbiased recommendations and due to the hostilities, they felt that could not come from
the OPA's and developers relationship.
Commissioner Merino stated that in no way would that disallow members of the OPA to
come forward and speak during the public hearing.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Page 8 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
9 of 38
Commissioner Merino stated one of the issues he saw was that the General Plan
Designation on the existing piece of property seemed intrinsically at odds. He
acknowledged that he had numerous discussions with representatives from. both sides of
the issue. It seemed to him that if there was open space and the intent of the designation
and history was important when they discussed the matter. If something was supposed to
be open space, he had not understood how they would also allow buildings of any sort,
including residences, to be placed there and he asked for an explanation?
Mr. Sheatz stated most of that occurred in 1973. There had been a recommendation
when the area was examined and the question had been raised that if part of the property
was in the City, designated Orange and part of it was County property, why was it all
lumped together? There was a Committee, at the time, that was reviewing that and had
defined the area under the Orange Park Acres Plan. The plan incorporated all of the City
and County area. At that time, in examining the plan, there was a recommendation that
had come from the Planning Commission to designate the golf course as open space, low
density, and then in parenthesis written 1 acre; that had been adopted in a Planning
Commission resolution that went to City Council. The Council's action adopted the
recommendation and the amendment which had included the open space, low density (1
acre) and at the time directed Staff to incorporate that plan into the City's General Plan.
It had morphed in that manner and what it was presently. It was actually part of the
City's General Plan.
Commissioner Merino asked was it at all typical?
Chair Whitaker stated Mr. Sheatz had answered how it occurred, and asked if he had a
follow up question, as he would want discussion time and he understood Commissioner
Merino had additional concerns with the answer he was given, but he would want to have
further discussion during the Commission's discussion time and asked if he had another
question?
Commissioner Merino stated yes he had an additional question and asked was it at all
typical, was there any place elsewhere in the City that a Land Use Designation or Zoning
could be both open space and residential?
Mr. Sheatz stated there may be, he was not certain. Again it went back to 1973 and he
was not sure and could not answer yes or no.
Commissioner Merino stated, on page 18 of the Staff Report, there was a statement in the
third paragraph of the Staff Report that it was apparent that the OPA Plan was not a
specific plan and to him he asked Staff, if there were any implications. He felt it was
important enough for Staff to have stated it, and were there any implications for the
Commission to consider if indeed the OPA plan was not a specific plan?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had added that segment quoting the City Attorney's office and
their office had made that statement based on a former action and former resolutions in
adopting the plan. Those actions basically stated that it was part of the general plan and
not a specific plan and there were documents that stated it had not carried the merits that
it was a specific plan and he was not certain, off the top of his head, where that had taken
Page 9 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
10 of 38
place. However, it might have been during a subsequent action on another development
project where it had been reiterated. He could review his documents and provide the
resolutions that had involved that situation.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated she wanted to expand on the issue. It
had been determined that what had been known as the OPA specific plan had not met the
criteria of a specific plan and by Council action fell within the General Plan. Originally
the applicant had applied for a specific plan amendment and in researching the project,
OPA was part of the Land Use element of the General Plan, therefore, there was not a
specific plan amendment application as part of the project. Were there implications for
the Planning Commission that it was not a specific plan, there were not. The General
Plan Amendment focused on the same areas that were covered in a specific plan
applicant, the General Plan Amendment would look at the specific changes in the OPA
document.
A member of the audience spoke out. Chair Whitaker stated he would take testimony
from Staff, the applicant and the public; they were not present for an open debate, but a
time to gather facts and it was not time for the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had questions regarding the Development
Agreement No. 3.4.1, the donation part regarding the arena and it was a source of some
concern. What he had been told, for the sake of illustration, if the Council were to
approve the project, 3.9 acres of the riding area would go to anon-profit for the benefit of
the community. In reading the Development Agreement, it read as the donation would be
contingent of Ridgeline and Rio Santiago approvals. He asked if that was a result of not
being written correctly and asked if he could clarify that component.
The way it was structured was that there were two things that could occur with Ridgeline
and one of two things needed to occur prior to the building permit issuance. One was the
donation and that was flat out defined as a donation of the Sully Miller Arena and the
vacant land with the fruit stand to be donated all at once to anon-profit entity. The other
thing that could occur, was an optional donation, that was a donation of a 3.9 acre riding
portion of the site and essentially half the site being donated. The manner was to review
the last sentence of sub-section D; in the event of a contingency occurring under sub-
section 341b or 341c, basically if there was a referendum or lawsuit of the agreement
prior to issuance of any building permits for the project and that referred to the project
before them, not Rio Santiago; he believed that was where the language became as clear
as he could get it.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he understood that portion and it was confusing on the
last paragraph of 3.4.1; the donations shall be contingent upon the following terms and
contingencies and it stated the Rio Santiago and Ridgeline projects being satisfactory to
the owner; and it was not clear that the arena went with Ridgeline and the other acreage
went with the other.
Mr. Sheatz stated in A; if Ridgeline was approved and Rio Santiago was approved and
the other things had not occurred, the owner shall donate the arena site and there were
other things that covered the contingencies and there was a split which he assured them
Page 10 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
11 of 38
was not the City Attorney's office that chose to have the document broken up to a 3.7 and
a 3.9 acre, two different optional donations; it was something that had been offered up by
the applicant. They had done their best with it and they had done the best that they could
with it. There was an awful lot going on with that section; the bottom line for the
Planning Commission was that a building permit could not be issued for Ridgeline until
the minimum optional donation could occur and that was the bottom line, for lines A-F
that was what came out in the wash.
Commissioner Cunningham stated a donation could occur if one was approved and not
the other.
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct.
Chair Whitaker asked if there were any further questions for Staff. There were none. He
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Ken Ryan, representative of JMI Real Estate, address on file, stated after several years of
work with a comprehensive team, they were available to answer any questions they might
have. He had worked for several years with City Staff and the Community and he was
pleased to have a recommendation of approval by the City Staff and he thanked Ms.
Aranda Roseberry and Mr. Ortlieb for all of their hard work. Even when there was a
disagreement, it was done in a very professional manner and appreciated by the applicant.
The site itself, and he would have a Powerpoint presentation, was a 51 acre site off of
Meads within the Orange Park Acres area. The issues on the property were, first of all,
from an existing use, was the Ridgeline Golf Club. It used to be a golf course. The 51
acres was, for the most part, vacant and the unused pool and tennis court were still there
and from time to time, the meeting facility was used. The design approach for the project
was to upgrade the conditions of the property as they existed today and to focus on the
community character and the amenities and to focus on the equestrian lifestyle. They had
heard that from the neighbors when they had met with them. They had done that under a
comprehensive manner under 3 primary aspects. That was done from systems based
analysis looking at water, traffic, engineering and market conditions; then to evaluate
from a contextual value from the community character and how the elements from their
design perspective enhanced the community and environment; lastly there was an
extensive community outreach program. They had 1200 community surveys, phone
surveys, website information, site tours, newsletters, workshops, small community
meetings, coffees, one on ones and they had heard from their opposition and also from
the City. They had heard from the OPA and had heard very carefully from the entire
community what would be appropriate for the site. He presented and explained an
exhibit of the process they had gone through and the process that had been required
through the City.
Mr. Ryan stated what they had done, and it was a fairly simple message, to think about an
equestrian oriented lifestyle and that went with the OPA plan that fostered that lifestyle
and to use architecture and landscape that would be complimentary to the setting and a
project that had less traffic. More than anything they had heard that they wanted
Page 11 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
12 of 38
something on the property that had less traffic on the property and to provide community
amenities that responded to the character of the area.
From a community character perspective, they proposed 39 one acre lots, the architecture
being complimentary to the existing OPA neighborhood. They had spent a great deal of
time with the DRC in reviewing those components to provide for community amenities
and they proposed land for a public ride in only arena. They had initially proposed a
drive in arena, however, modified the plan to reduce traffic; approximately one mile of
new perimeter public trails and almost a mile of internal feeder trails. They had looked
closely at infrastructure, storm water management, traffic, roadway improvements, and
emergency access. They took a look at open space and integrated the project with
preservation of the Handy Creek area and maintaining 146 existing trees on site and
planting over 450 new trees; there would be a total of 880 trees not counting individual
lot landscape.
From a community benefit perspective, the project proposed 39 one acre equestrian estate
lots that would promote less traffic then what had previously been on the property. With
equestrian facilities closing around the county and through Orange County, the project
promoted an equestrian lifestyle and what OPA was about. In addition there was a gift.
It was not a requirement, a mitigation measure or part of the project. It was the donation
of the Sully Miller site which he believed was very significant. The 39 one acre lots, one
mile trail, integrated open space, 16,000 square foot ride-in only arena, and from a
grading standpoint, looked at what could be done to ensure that they were adhering to the
current topography. He pointed out the site entrance and stated there was a gradual rise
from the low area along Handy Creek that rose up in a gentle manner to the east portion
of the project toward the current Ridgeline Estates which were existing homes. The road
worked its way up in a gentle manner and sloped in between with some of the best views
in Orange County that were part of the property and it thought about the relationship to
the existing landowners. The project was balanced in the grading itself with an extensive
landscape plan with tree retention, additional trees and open space. The plan responded
to the principals of being green. There were bio swbles to assist in water filtration, they
would remove the heat island of the existing parking structure, auto emission reduction
through less traffic and the plant palette was consistent with the current native shrubs and
trees on site. He presented exhibits that displayed the layout of the site and the view of
the site from various vantage points and explained the various locations and site layout.
Mr. Ryan stated the architectural styles of the homes were California Ranch, Traditional
and Country and each of those styles had 3 different floor plans and he believed, due to
that approach, it would be a non-mass produced feel and particularly with each style,
setback and driveway access. The homes ranged from 6500 square feet to 8000 square
feet with private horse stables to reflect the architecture and adjacent to the horse trails.
There was good internal access and to the feeder trails. He stated that they had spent a lot
of time on trails and they had been designed intentionally to be very subtle and efficiently
effective. The City's trail standards had required 18' right of way and 10' tread, but for
special circumstances in the Master Trail Plan of the City, it allowed for trails that were
10' and 6'. He presented an exhibit of the trails system within the proposed project and
explained the dimensions and how the trail system connected from within the
development to the outside regional trail system. The trails along Handy Creek allowed
Page 12 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
13 of 38
for the trail systems to the south and east and the site had allowed for that connection.
There were 12' wide trails and 10' trails and they had chosen to utilize the different trail
widths as the trails within Orange Park Acres were not consistent and they had felt that it
was one of the beautiful aspects of Orange Park Acres that it had not felt mass produced.
He presented photos of different trails that existed in Orange. For the first time ever as
part of the proposal, it would allow for a connection from within the development to the
regional trail system to the south. They also brought it to the east for a future connection
and the trail access along Coyote and the regional trail system along Meads would be a
major public benefit overall.
Mr. Ryan stated he would speak about the ride-in only arena. They had spent a great deal
of time with the DRC reviewing that section. They had taken advantage of the natural
slope and had proposed a split rail fence along the creek area; he presented an exhibit and
pointed out specific elements of the proposed arena area. The proposal included an
almost 2 acre ride-in only arena that would be open to the public along the regional trail
system. One issue that they were in disagreement with Staff was the no credit for
providing a 2 acre site for the ride-in only arena and the perimeter trail. They were
providing about 4.43 acres of what they believed was a very important recreation open
space for the community and the City code would require .36 acres, when he added up
the arena, perimeter trail and open space, it was over 4 acres of open space and there had
not been any park credit offered for that. The justification from Staff had been that it had
not inet the overall need. Mr. Ryan stated that the proposal met what the neighbors
wanted to see and he would site, on page 119 of the OPA Plan where it spoke to local
parks and he would quote directly, "the plan proposes that parks would have very low
maintenance requirements, pasture instead of highly manicured landscaping and it should
be planned to provide a rural character environment and oriented to community activities
such as barbeques, livestock shows, fairs, etc. and he felt what had been proposed was
consistent with the OPA Plan". Rather than put in a tot lot or park, they had proposed a
ride-in only arena that celebrated the equestrian lifestyle and he felt that a credit should
be given to them for that, instead the project was being penalized for being inconsistent
with the intent of the plan.
In addition to all the elements that he just spoke of he wanted to speak about the Sully
Miller site. JMI Real Estate, through a separate binding contract which was not a
mitigation measure, not required, the EIR spoke to that, it was a gift. In addition to the
things that they believed celebrated the equestrian lifestyle, they had added, as a benefit,
a donation for the 3.9 acre licensed existing arena as well as the 3.7 agricultural and retail
operation area to anon-profit, solely to be used for the community's equestrian center.
Some people had attempted to have it be more complicated and had asked why it was
being done. The reason it was in the development agreement was to insure that it was a
binding document -that what was being promised would be adopted and was in writing.
There were a few simple exhibits that he wanted to share. He believed his legal council
and the City's legal council felt it stated what their intent was, however, he wanted to
clarify that. The 3.9 acre parcel, which was an existing, licensed arena and there was a
3.7 acre retail and agricultural area which he pointed out on the exhibit, was also the
exhibit included in the development agreement. There was parking, adequate access and
it worked for the arena site. The development agreement stated that, as a separate
component of the agreement, a 3.9 acre arena and 3.7 acre agricultural/retail operation
Page 13 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
14 of 38
would be offered to anon-profit entity in an "as is condition" for use solely as a
community equestrian arena. When Ridgeline was approved and prior to issuance of a
building permit, the 3.9 acre licensed existing arena would be donated to anon-profit.
When Rio Santiago was approved and prior to issuance of a building permit, the 3.7 acre
agricultural site would be donated to that same non-profit entity. If there should be a
lawsuit or referendum or Rio Santiago was denied, the 3.7 acre agricultural site would not
be donated, the 3.9 acre arena would be, but the 3.7 acre would not. Obviously if the
project went away there would not be a donation. In simple terms that was what the
development agreement stated.
Mr. Ryan stated, relative to the EIR, there had been some comments regarding the loss of
open space. He understood very deeply that people had fond memories of the area.
Residents' kids had learned to play golf there and their kids swam at the facility in the
summer. He understood that the previous owner had not been able to make the facility
work financially and it had been put up for public sale. JMI bought the site and it was a
private recreational facility, it was not public open space. People paid to use the facility.
T11e plan that was proposed opened up the property, with trails and the ride-in only arena
moved the project in a direction that had not existed. In 1973 the OPA plan was adopted
as part of the City's Land Use Element. The Land Use designation was other open space
and low density 1 acre, it was allowed, and those were the two resolutions. Resolution
30-15 which adopted it as part of the General Plan and adopted everything the Planning
Commission recommended, he referred to the Powerpoint display, in the fine print and it
answered the comment from the audience that it was not a specific plan - it was adopted
as part of the General Plan for the City and what the City Council adopted in 1973. They
also adopted the recommendations of the Planning Commission in 1973 that delegated
the site as golf course, with the intent that the golf course would remain forever, but if it
went away and found not to be financially feasible, one acre lots would be appropriate
and would be allowed on the property and that was what was proposed. There was a
logical question asked of our development team and that was why couldn't they spend
some money and have the golf course work again; they had hired Casey O'Callaghan to
evaluate the situation and there were some nine hole golf courses in California, and there
were some executive courses, but they were typically subsidized, they were lit and near a
central location. There was also the ability, from a Land Use perspective, to upgrade the
property for its feasibility. The Ridgeline property would not have that. If anyone had
the opportunity to watch the recent golf tournament where a twenty year old won, people
were hitting the balls a little bit longer these days. Even if Jack Nicholas wanted to
design a golf course at Ridgeline, it would not make sense financially.
Mr. Ryan stated one of the other issues that came up was traffic and they had a detailed
traffic impact analysis that was part of the EIR. There were comments about safety and
access at the entrance of the property and he displayed an exhibit that reviewed the traffic
information. They had worked very closely with the City's engineering department and
with the County engineering department, and Staff had indicated that a County road
existed to the site. They had completed speed surveys and the speed at the entrance was
found to be an average between 24 and 26 miles per hour. The speed limit was 25. They
were in agreement to stripe the crossing and place additional warning signs in the area.
They had a written letter from the County that they felt the proposal had a safe entrance
and it had met the requirements of a safe entry to the property. He also wanted to
Page 14 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
15 of 38
mention their position on the tandem parking. He disagreed with the Staff Report and
understood the City's perspective in an urban setting and it became a parking adequacy
issue and not a design issue. The project would have 39 lots, with the 3 elevations and 3
different floor plans for each of those elevations each house would look different; they
had 141ots that had been laid out to have tandem parking. The lots were not laid out with
tandem parking due to a parking issue, but a response to a very high end equestrian estate
home, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet and it would be a place to have a boat and an RV
vehicle all loaded and ready to go. It was a location where a resident could have a Ferrari
or electric vehicle and it was an option that they believed was warranted in such a unique
setting and it added relief with the variety of elevations. With all due respect, that was
the reasoning for the tandem parking request and not to skirt the parking requirements.
Mr. Ryan stated he had also disagreed on the chain link fence issue and the DRC had
agreed with him. He pointed out the access areas and access roads on an exhibit. There
was a split rail fence that was adjacent to the trail and a bit into the property, there was
chain link. From a design and safety perspective, it was unnecessary and the design of
the properties would orient away from that area and the split rail fence that was seen
throughout Orange Park Acres would be adequate. Engineers had looked at it and it was
not needed from a flood perspective as well. There was also discussion regarding a
dissipater and the water would be collected in a natural drainage area next to the road and
it would be treated before it left the property. They had received a Water Quality Plan
approval and met all the City standards. There was a request for information on the
appearance of the dissipater and he presented an exhibit of that system.
Mr. Ryan stated lastly, and there were other conditions that he would not go into detail
on, and some were minor in nature. Condition No. 60 they had received approval relative
to the traffic and the improvements in the crossing and there was a reference to Meats,
and he believed that was a typo, it should be Meads. There were some minor things. On
Condition No. 38, the requirement for phasing of trails, they were respectfully in
disagreement with that condition and were comfortable with the manner that the
development agreement read that prior to the 20th home being built, trails would go in. It
was a better way from a construction standpoint and design perspective. He needed
clarification on Condition No. 62 on the Water Quality Management Plan and Condition
No. 100. They had prepared their Fire Master Plan and a bit of language in Condition
No. 98 that needed to be cleaned up. Finally Mr. Chairman, that was the entire process
times 10, they had lots of meetings, including with the OPA Board and received
extensive input. All of the EIR work that had been done to date, he had experts available
to answer any questions on that. On the bottom of the list they had received
recommendations from the City's DRC and the Parks Planning & Development
Commissions and he thought the plan reflected hours of analysis and hours of input from
the community. It was a high end equestrian community with 1 acre lots, rolled curbs,
attractive architecture and landscaping, sensitive grading, the ability to have barns with
trail access. There was support from the EIR and a very thorough document that had one
significant unavoidable impact associated with it. For short term air quality impacts
during construction and with the support of the DRC, Parks Commission and Staff trusted
that the Planning Commission would come to the same conclusion.
Chair Whitaker asked if there were questions for the applicant.
Page 15 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2010
16 of 38
Commissioner Merino stated on the arena donation, as he saw it there was a new SOlc3
that was created and was he aware that there was an existing SOlc3 in the OPA?
Mr. Ryan stated he was aware and the intent of their donation was to ensure that the
group that accepted the arena, accepted it in a manner that would foster the long term
permanent use of the site for equestrian purposes, and they had not wanted to prejudge
who that should go to. There were a number of folks, some who were present, and
community leaders that would step up and ensure that it would be done in a manner that
was consistent with the property.
Commissioner Merino asked if Mr. Ryan understood that the OPA Board was the elected
representative body of the OPA community.
Mr. Ryan stated yes.
Commissioner Merino stated one of the issues he had was the architecture and things that
they were reviewing were subject to change after the entitlement, and he was asking for
clarification, once the zoning was changed or whatever, that would remain with the
property? It was as if they could un-do it, some of the architecture and the designs were
subject to change.
Mr. Ortlieb stated there were conditions of approval that required the project applicant to
return to the DRC with very detailed architectural plans, floor plans and landscape plans.
Commissioner Merino stated that he understood, but the zone change and the General
Plan Amendment would be permanently executed unless someone was to come back and
ask for it to be something else?
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Chair Whitaker stated with respect to the dedication of the trails for public use, he asked
were there any other instances in the City where there was privately owned but open to
the public areas that would qualify for the Quimby Standard for park regulations that
were imposed by the State?
Community Service Director, Marie Knight, stated there was currently nothing to her
knowledge that was privately owned that was opened to the public.
Mr. Ryan stated the perimeter public trails and the public ride-in only arena would be
areas that would be offered to the City first, County second and a SOlc third and then the
development.
Commissioner Cunningham stated on the 8' trails, he asked why shouldn't they be
widened.
Mr. Ryan stated for a couple of reasons. He believed that the strong aspects of the
overall area was the variety of trails. There was an eclectic mix and it was one of the
unique aspects of OPA that was not found other places. The topography of the site, from
Page 16 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
17 of 38
Handy Creek to the upper regions, could all be put in at 18' x 10', but it would appear
more strident and manufactured. When the users and number of lots was reviewed that
would access the feeder trails, and they had Alice Sorensen provide input about the size
of trails to have them be safe and allow for proper access and usage, they felt what was
proposed would be appropriate for the number of people using the trails.
Commissioner Cunningham asked was the chain link fence removal for aesthetic
reasons?
Mr. Ryan stated yes, primarily and the OPA discouraged chain link in the area.
Commissioner Cunningham asked on the park fees, were they seeking a waiver of all
park fees or were they willing to work with the City?
Mr. Ryan stated they were willing to work with the City, however, were seeking a
waiver of fees, he felt the fact that the property would be open to the public and was
over 4 acres with a requirement of .36 acres, warranted the waiver of fees.
Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for Public Comment.
Shirley Grindle, address on file, stated she was one of 3 members still alive that
served on the committee that drew up the OPA Plan in 1973, and was on the O.C.
Planning Commission at that time and represented the 4th district. Also on the
committee were HOA Board members, City and County government representatives
and OPA landowners and developers waiting to build in OPA. The Committee
Members recognized that the golf course was privately owned and they were hopeful
that it would be purchased by a public entity and retained as open space, but in the
event that a public entity would not acquire the site, the Committee unanimously
agreed that the site could be developed into 1 acre lots consistent with the
surrounding homes in OPA. The alternatives had been adopted by the City and the
County and backed by OPA leaders at the time. It was the reason the property carried
two Land Use designations, to allow for either situation and it was common
knowledge, even in 1973, that the golf course was not a profitable venture and was
unlikely to survive. The tennis club was added later to improve the profitability but
the property had been sold and re-sold many times over the last 25 years. She had not
known any law that by the City, County or God himself, could force a private owner .
to remain in business, particularly if it was a losing business. The proposed
development conformed to the 1 acre equestrian lifestyle that was envisioned when
the OPA plan was created. It was now up to the City to work with the applicant to get
theirs the best possible project. As one of the last remaining old timers who had been
very involved in drawing up the OPA plans, she offered them more material. It was a
compiled history of the events that had shaped the East Orange area. She provided
hand outs to the Commissioners.
Kevin Ward, address on file, stated from a housing industry perspective, the issue he
had seen over the years was that a City needed and wanted housing, however, would
go into the business of somehow inhibiting that process. Even a high end set of
houses as those proposed could provide housing for other people as they moved up.
Page 17 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
18 of 38
It could provide a trickle down effect even in the local community. He had been
asked by the developer to speak about more touchy issues such as the fees, but as a
resident of Orange, he respectfully wanted to consider the opinions of everyone and
the one issue that the fees would create would set a precedent and was dangerous for
the economy as it could stifle projects, hold up projects and could make projects less
feasible in exacting fees. The proposal provided a lot of park space and the donation
that would serve the public. It would set a dangerous precedent.
Norman Brock, address on file, stated he wanted to speak about the history of the golf
course. From the time that the specific plan was being developed, he was a member
of the committee, president of the HOA, resident of the community, operator at the
golf course and the director of the OPA Water Company. From the acquisition of the
golf course they knew it was a loser; he had known the developer and it never made a
profit. The water had a high TDS, the only thing that would survive was seaside
grass and common Bermuda grass, it was a poor design and 9 hole golf courses would
not survive. They bought it with the purpose of developing the site. Unfortunately a
few days before the escrow closed when a purchase was being made his father in-law
decided he wanted to have the golf course remain. When the escrow closed he
wanted to take the checkbook and pay off all of the golf course staff, and he had
wanted to keep the golf course a while longer, it was all news to him. The point was
that it was never more than an emotional decision at the wrong time to have the golf
course remain. As a member of the community and HOA president, they decided to
come up with a specific plan in self defense and they were having problems with the
City of Orange and the City Council had their own vision of OPA different from their
vision and they were continually at odds. They raised the money to elect two City
Council members and they developed the specific plan.
George Bloecher, address on file, stated he had been on the Board of Directors of
OPA for 7 years and he was opposed to the project until the proper mitigation
measures for loss of open space, recreational property and the donation of the area
was completed.
Tom Davidson, address on file, stated the Ridgeline Development which would
require a re-zoning of land currently zoned recreational open space might be one of
the most important and impactful projects that had been before the Planning
Commission. There were two words that would be heard over and over; responsible
and mitigation. The leadership of OPA was committed to finding awin-win solution
that would allow for responsible development in a way that would protect the quality
of life of all Orange residents. He believed a project could be brought forth that
would have overwhelming community support with proper mitigation. The OPA
Real Estate Committee had worked diligently over 3 years with countless hours and
at least 52 meetings and 10 community outreach meetings regarding the Land Use
issues; they never asked for signatures for or against Ridgeline and meetings were
open to all. The dedication of the Real Estate Committee was amazing. They worked
in good faith with the developer to create a good plan that would be a win-win and
they had hoped to come before the Planning Commission arm in arm in support, but
that had not been the case. Unfortunately it appeared the developer believed it would
be more lucrative to maximize the property's development at the expense of the
Page 18 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
19 of 38
surrounding community. A windfall for the developer but a steep fall for the
residents and by denying a re-zoning of the property or at minimum continuing the
item and encouraging the developer to work with OPA leaders to achieve awin-win
solution, the City could ensure a good project that would come forth with a general
community consensus. If the re-zoning was allowed under the developers terms,
there would be no going back, the City and residents would lose all leverage for
responsible planning. He thanked the Commissioners for their time and attention to
the matter and their tireless commitment to the community. He stated please vote to
deny the applicant's request for a zone change or to continue the item to ask the
applicant to reengage with OPA leadership to find a solution with a consensus for
both the community and developer.
Dr. Deborah Ferber, address on file, stated she lived in Dana Point and wanted to
speak for all the users who have enjoyed Ridgeline over the years that hadn't even
lived in the area. The loss of Ridgeline had been felt throughout the region; she was
present to ask for protection of open space by voting no on the zone change. There
were dozens of them .wearing no re-zoning tags. In order to respect the
Commissioner's time they would not all speak, but please understand that the vast
majority of residents would prefer to have the land remain open space, rather than re-
zoned for more houses to be built. As Planning Commissioners they had the
opportunity to be community leaders. Ask the developer to meet with OPA leaders
and find a solution. If re-zoning was permitted without proper mitigation and
compensation, the City would have lost leverage in responsible planning in the East
Orange area. She had been part of the coalition that stopped the sale of the OC
Fairgrounds and might remember the City adopted a resolution to oppose the sale of
the fairgrounds as the area was too important a recreational area in Orange County to
lose. If the City of Orange was willing to stand up for open space outside of the City,
the least they could do was to stand up for the recreational open space in the City and
to please do the right thing and vote no or at least continue the item and direct the
developer to meet with community members to find a solution.
Victoria Coonradt, address on file, stated she had lived in Orange for over 30 years
and 15 of those years had been in OPA. She was a lifetime equestrian and living in
OPA was a childhood dream fulfilled. She had the pleasure riding the trails and she
was a regular user of the OPA arena and had participated in several shows held there.
OPA was a unique place thanks to all the people who had worked so hard to protect it
over the years. She was fortunate to be a part of the fine community and felt the OPA
arena was a valuable asset to the community and should be protected. She was not
willing to sell out the community for the project before them. Ridgeline was not
zoned for houses and as such there needed to be a fair replacement of recreational
open space acreage. Recreational uses at Ridgeline counted too, swimmers, golfers
and tennis players. They had lost an important place to recreate. The developer was
using the arena as a way to get his developments approved, she believed they were
being held hostage and had not agreed with their strategy. Losing 52 acres of
recreational open space at Ridgeline and having to agree to 460 high density units as
well as the other things proposed for Sully Miller was not a good trade for a horse
arena. The community was fortunate to have the OPA Board and real estate
community working on their behalf to protect them from bad deals. She appreciated
Page 19 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
20 of 38
their efforts and proud to hear the Equestrian Coalition of Orange County supported
the OPA Board in their efforts to protect the community from an inappropriate
development. She stated please do not approve the zone change or development
agreement.
Teresa Sears, address on file, stated she lived in Orange for 20 years, 15 of those in
OPA and she had the pleasure of serving on the Real Estate Commission since 2007
and had been very impressed with the leadership of OPA and their dedication to the
issues. It was time Orange stopped allowing developers to do City Planning; the
Planning Commission should do that; not the applicant nor his investors. Due to the •
City not being proactive in their planning, they were stuck with complicated and
confusing issues. There were 51 acres zoned recreational open space and the
developer and investors wanted to build houses. It was important to note that they
had no right to build houses without a zone change and it was the crux of the matter.
There was a 7 acre horse arena zoned for houses and they apparently had not wanted
to build there. They were asking for a zone change for the 51 acres on Ridgeline but
not the 7 acre horse arena. The arena site was not on the agenda as they had not
wanted the public to get the full picture of what was in store for her community. It
was a defining moment for the City and especially for those living in East Orange and
not to mention the impacts on OPA. Let's tell the truth. Opportunistic investors
owned 168 acres between Ridgeline and Sully Miller. Of those 168 acres only 20
acres was zoned residential, however, they wanted to build 39 homes and 470 high
density housing units on 82 acres not zoned for either development. The investors
had not wanted to follow the zoning on the books but rather change it to suit their
agenda. Sadly they had used the arena site as a community wedge. She knew that
was what developers had done to divide communities and confuse the issues. The
Planning Commission needed to get the zoning straightened out. Start by changing
the 7 acre horse arena to recreational open space and move the recreational zoning to
Ridgeline. The developer could then build on the 7 acres and if they wanted more, to
keep trading. It would be good Land Use planning and please do not allow the
developer to tie the City and the public's hands with an all or nothing deal. Please be
the advocates for the people. They had the discretion to deny the zone change.
Barry Evans, address on file, presented a handout to the Commissioners. He stated he
had been a resident of Orange for 21 years and he handed Mr. Ortlieb reports that he
wanted the Commissioners to have. He asked them to look at the first page of the
report which was an aerial photo of the 51 acre Ridgeline property. It showed the
pool, 14 tennis courts, driving range, golf course and club house that contained the
tennis pro shop and banquet facilities. There was no other facility like it in Orange
County and the report included a table analysis he created in 2008 and the number of
people who used the facility was approximately 26,000, which included summer
camps for tennis and golf, 2 high school golf and tennis teams and also Rancho
Santiago golf teams. The EIR, as Mr. Ortlieb stated, was 84% against the project. He
felt if all the citizens had a chance to vote on the proposed project, they would
probably vote 95% or more against it. When decisions were made regarding
recreational open space, he thought the City should make decisions that would
achieve the greater good for the greatest number of people. To change the zoning to
allow 39 homes would not fulfill the obligation. The EIR and economic analysis
Page 20 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
21 of 38
throughout the golf course was loaded with caveats and there was not supporting data
for the estimates of the 4.6 million dollars to build the golf course back to the way it
had been. The number had indicated that since the land had been purchased, there
had been a lot of damage to the golf course. The City of Brea Creek Executive Golf
Course operated by Billy Casper Golf was doing well with 5,000 to 6, 000 rounds of
golf each month and income to the City of Brea was $125,000.00 per year. It was his
opinion that an independent study group should be created by the City of Orange to
evaluate the economics of the Ridgeline development and would represent various
interests in the City. The group could analyze the different ways the City could
obtain the property. The report he had presented contained a State of California
report on how to acquire open land. There were two possibilities; a bond measure or
a foundation loan paid through operating income. The study would include operating
costs and income of various facilities and it could be a pay for play operation and
could earn several thousands of dollars for the City. Without an independent study,
the decisions by the City could be seriously challenged due to a lack of due diligence
by the City. The golf course could be operated by Billy Casper, and the golf and
tennis centers could be leased to Nike or Adidas. He hoped others could catch the
creative vision.
Cecelia Evans, address on file, stated she was a retired school teacher. She and her .
husband went to Ridgeline frequently, mostly to play golf. She was most impressed
with all the children involved in the various activities at Ridgeline, which were golf,
tennis and swimming as well as the clinics offered in the summer months. The camps
were a highlight for the kids. It was great to see families enjoying activities together.
Another important aspect of Ridgeline was that it offered high schools and colleges a
place to practice. It was hard to imagine that 39 new homes would be more beneficial
to the community than an outstanding sports center. The residents of Orange needed
a place for recreational activities, there were none and it was not acceptable.
Katherine Lucas, address on file, stated she had been a community member since
1976. Her husband was Tom Lucas of Lucas &Macera Construction, Lucas &
Macera Development and Lucas & Macera Sales. In 1975 they formed a
development known as Pheasant Run on Chapman Avenue. When the plans had
come across their desk, it seemed like a golden opportunity for them as they lived in
Orange and boarded their horses in Sunny Hills, Fullerton where they had grown up.
With a common equestrian area in the tract, they could have their horses and their
children could have their neighborhood and for a short time it worked. There were
conflicts that never ended, people with horses vs. people without horses, that was the
only option they had in the neighborhood and was the only option in the plan that was
being put forth. The families without horses resented paying association dues for
horse related properties. Everyone had the right to a stall, but not everyone wanted a
stall. Why should they have to pay the fees for stalls and an arena or trail
maintenance they would not use. It was voted to narrow the trails throughout the
tract. They closed the ends of the trails and they became dead ends. It became riders
against non-riders, angry neighbors who had not liked each other and had not liked
people banging on their doors day after day. They moved, they had to leave the
community. Not the entire community, just the Pheasant Run community. They
realized that option would not work and was not a workable solution. With each new
Page 21 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
22 of 38
board change there were rules that changed and it could not make everyone happy.
They left Pheasant Run but not OPA. They were successful builders and developers
and never brought forth another equestrian community plan. Building a home and
having a barn would not work. They never wanted again to divide a community or to
pit neighbor against neighbor. There was still good land available and the plan just
offered horses or non-horses and she asked that the Commission listen to her and
make a good decision.
Christine Rosenow, address on file, commented the developer stated they met with
the community. She was at some of those meetings and heard what the community
input was and none of those suggestions were in the plan. The developer created the .
plan; drove the plan and it was for the benefit of the developer and not the
community. The developer mentioned trails and had he thought interesting trails
trumped safety, couldn't he create interesting and safe trails. It was what she would
like them to go back and visit. The definition of mitigation was not give a little and
get everything; it was to offset a great loss. A ride-in arena was not to be maintained
by the developer, but by others. A 3.9 acre donation to anon-profit that the developer
would create was not mitigation to the loss of Ridgeline's golf, tennis and meeting
facilities. She was asking that the project be sent back to the community to work out
a decent project that was awin-win for everyone.
Debbie Mongan, address on file, stated her house was above the existing swimming
pool of the current property. She lived on Ridgeline for 8 years. Her children swam
in the pool, learned to play golf on the course and she was speaking for her 10 year
old son. She would like the Commission to consider the interest of the community
and the children and she appreciated hearing about what had occurred in the past, but
the City Council had an amazing opportunity to protect a piece of property that would
reverberate far into the future. If the land was built on now, it would be gone forever
and they would lose that chance now. They needed to think of the development of
the children and the community as well as the developer's right to build 39 homes
and property owners that had not yet existed. She had not felt that potential future
homeowners should trump the rights of the existing community. From what she had
heard, people were opposed to the proposed project. They had a discussion on zoning
and they were lost in the details of trail widths, plants and fencing and they were not
at that threshold. They were at the point of deciding zoning and nothing more. They
needed to think about the opportunities before them. She could not buy the argument
that it was not viable, she lived above it and had watched the property turned into dirt
and dead trees. She had watched kids break into the property to skateboard in the
empty pool because they were so desperate for a chance to recreate. If it was taken
away and homes were built, there would be 39 more homes but the opportunity for
something great would be lost. Please consider that once it was gone they could
never get it back.
Nancy Vance, address on file, stated she lived in Orange with her wonderful husband.
She loved the City and they lived there since 1974 and they had relatives across the
nation in Texas, Arkansas, New York and having horse property they looked at
having quite a unique thing. She had not known if the Commissioners lived in the
City at large or in the country area, when living in 2010 in the U.S.A., living on horse
Page 22 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
23 of 38
property was a big deal, it was a very freakin' big deal. When they spoke of zone
changes of a big percentage in OPA it was a big deal. OPA was such a great place to .
live and she loved it so much. Villa Park used to be like it, Yorba Linda had horse
property, but it wasn't the same as OPA. In Southern California OPA was the place
to be for horses. There was a decision for the Commission on what to do with
Ridgeline. She was a business kind of person and if she knew that the tennis and golf
thing could be feasible, they could leave it open space and that was the big question
and they should be able find that out, but no one could tell them that. Do not change
the zoning until they had looked at all the options, they wanted it kept open. The
specific plan had designated open space and had that plan not meant anything, was it
just something on a piece of paper that had no meaning. She asked if the
Commissioners could answer her question.
Chair Whitaker stated they were not able to debate and asked for the next speaker.
Ellen Richards, address on file, stated she had two horses and used the horse arena all
the time and realized how valuable the arena was to her lifestyle and viability for the
neighborhood. By the City's own accounting it fell short of its goal of 3 acres of park
space per 1,000 residents. There were only 1.4 acres of park space per 1,000 and
they were discussing some of the merits of building houses on one of the few open
spaces in Orange. The Staff Report glossed over that by noting the acreage was
privately held and could not be counted as a loss to the private sector and noted that
the mile of horse trail included in the plan actually increased the public recreational
space. The report had several pages of why it had not counted, but only one sentence
in the conclusion that the application could be denied for, and that would be to
encourage future recreation for the site. The Staff Report prepared for the parks
department advanced the same theory, but also stated that the loss of open space
recreational designated site could interfere with future abilities by the City to engage
in parkland opportunities. The City's current budget falls would not allow the City to
look at park opportunities currently, however, what about next year or the year after?
With park land being less than half the ratio that the law recommends, Orange would
be looking for park land in the near future. The developer made the point that they
had listened to the Community and had offered the equestrian amenities that were
important to OPA. The arena had restricted access and a mile of trails that went no
where and the developer was proud of those concessions and tried to use those to
avoid paying required fees to the City. The modest trail would not satisfy City
requirements and clearly would not satisfy any recreational user who was not an
equestrian. The developer chose not to hear community input that over half the
residents had not owned horses; however they swam, played golf, hiked and enjoyed
picnics in the park. OPA loved horses, but it was only one part of their unique
community. The project detracted from the City's future opportunities for parks and .
it ignored the needs of the residents of Orange and they were not willing to sacrifice a
multi-recreational space for many to enjoy and satisfy the vision of just a few. Please
deny the zoning change.
William Ernst, address on file, stated if the re-zoning of Ridgeline was approved the
citizens of Orange of all ages will lose a facility unlike anything else in the City.
Even in declining times a report showed that there are 422 dues paying members; but
Page 23 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
24 of 38
that was not as important as it was to their young for the big summer youth training
camps that were there. It was the loss of one of the biggest youth tennis tournaments,
the loss of the Olympic size swimming pool enjoyed by young people who learned to
swim there every summer, the loss of the previously employed, 3 managers, 6 tennis
pros, 5 golf pros, 3 maintenance workers and the loss of a physical therapist trainer
and even the loss of the outdoor wedding area. In over 30 years the Police
Department had not been called to handle a complaint and the only thing on record
was that in 2007, a maintenance cart was reported stolen. It spoke well of the
members of Ridgeline and its guests. He and many others would not want the
community to suffer the loss that was needed by the youth.
Peter Wetzel, address on file, stated he wanted to commend Staff for including a
condition to require all trails remain open to the public and beyond an HOA to shut '
them off. He believed that issue was placed on the Irvine Company's East Orange
project and in a response to an LA County HOA that tried to close a 20 year old trail;
similar to what they were now looking at. As for the project itself, he had not
objected to the project design, but objected to giving up one of the last open space
areas in the City, once it was developed it would be gone forever. He would not
know how they might use the space in the future, but certainly there were very few
open areas in the City. The developer owned two of the largest sites. He had thought
that the applicant was offering, in mitigation, the 3.9 acres on and if something
happened situation and he was now hearing it was not the case. There was no
mitigation. He urged the denial of any zoning change until there was adequate
mitigation and suggested what Ms. Sears stated was a fine place to start.
Anita Bennyhoff, address on file, stated she wished she could commend City Staff
but felt that they were working very closely with the developer and lead them to use
language that undercut the OPA specific plan. In the OPA specific plan it stated that
OPA plan was an important link in the overall comprehensive General Plan effort in
the City of Orange and served as a valuable tool in guiding and directing the future
development of the OPA community. It went onto state further that the City Council
felt that the adoption of the OPA plan would enhance and improve the environment of
the City of Orange. The open space section stated it advocated the permanent
retention of the 34 acre golf course within OPA, if the private ownership could not
sustain a viable economic return public acquisition was recommended to preserve a
substantial amenity for recreation and open space within the area and it was
recommended the property immediately to the east of the golf course owned by the
Catholic Church use a rural cluster in development. In addition to the golf course
there was a tennis club. She presented a photo and asked if all the Commissioners
had a copy of the OPA specific plan?
Chair Whitaker asked if she would like them to have a copy Staff could get that to
them.
Ms. Bennyhoff stated she would make copies and email them.
Chair Whitaker called fora 10 minute break to resume public comment at 9:30 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m.
Page 24 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
25 of 38
Sarah Glisman, address on file, stated she appreciated the time and opportunity to
speak. She lived in the community for 15 years and she had two children and was a
professional that worked outside the home. She cared a lot about the community.
The project had been debated for years and years and she believed now was the time
for action; they all had to come to a decision and move on. There was a property
owner that wanted to build 1 acre parcels, keeping in mind they were homes, not a
school, or cemetery or something that would be unflattering. It was the best of the
best for land options. It was her understanding that the land was adhering to the
density allowed for them in the OPA plan and it would provide recreation facilities
that had not existed and everyone in the community could enjoy. Most important to
her was that it would remain a community. The person who would be building was
part of the community and it was not an outside company, not to invest and leave, he
lived here in the community with his family. There was a personal investment with
the project. Not moving the project forward would be a detriment and would throw
away years of preparation and discussion. What would happen if the proposed
project was not approved? The walk away would be a vacant land, that they had all
used and her son learned to play golf there, he had his first swim lesson there and she
got the emotion, but who wanted a piece of land that they could not make money on.
She would not want it and she would not ask anyone to do something to hold a piece
of property as a donation and it was unrealistic. Her concern was that if something
would not happen soon how many more years would they wait and what would they
do with the land to make it part of the community and she asked everyone to support
her and the community in the Ridgeline plan.
Teresa Beach, address on file, lived above the tennis courts of the project and was
very well aware of the emotional attachment to the land and she loved living above
open space. The land was owned by a person who had the right to develop the land
and she understood that it was zoned for open space or homes and she would much
rather look down on beautiful homes than the eroded golf course and the noisy tennis
courts, or the golf course collectors that were noisy and the traffic was loud. The
proposed development fit in with the rural feel of the community and she hoped that
everyone who enjoyed the facility over the years could pitch in and buy the facility
from the owner if they wanted open land. The land was owned by a person who had
the right in America to develop the land and make a profit just like everyone in the
room had a right to. Maybe they could take their houses down to provide open space
so her kids could run around. Keep that in mind as you go forward to vote on the
issue, they were lovely homes in a beautiful community, horse friendly and she hoped
it went forward.
Chair Whitaker stated the next speaker Jim Meyer was not present, another
community member approached the bench to read a letter, he asked the Assistant City
Attorney if that was allowed?
Mr. Sheatz stated that typically the letter would be accepted as part of the record.
Chair Whitaker stated he would accept the letter as part of the written record.
Page 25 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
26 of 38
Gene Krikorian, address on file, stated he was a principal with Economic Research
Associates, retained by Ridgeline Associates to evaluate the viability of the golf
course. He had been with ERA for 35 years and he specialized in golf course
economics. He conducted about 15-20 golf course assignments every year and most
of them in California. He was involved with the City of Orange approximately 20
years ago when the issue of closing Santiago was under consideration. The current
condition of the golf course site would require the entire property to be rebuilt. Their
assumption was that an executive length course, with a 20 tee range and no lights,
modest club house would be the property that could be built and those types of golf
courses served as a very important amenity to communities, however, they were an
amenity and specifically a new golf course would not be an economic enterprise. The
cost to develop a course would be in the 4 to 5 million dollar range, the last one
similar to that, built 10 years ago in El Segundo had cost about 4.2 million dollars in
1998. The viability could be compared to the golf course once constructed, and
without a subsidy of 2.3 million dollars, would not be economically viable. The only
courses of that type that would do well were those that had booming driving ranges
that could generate $5,000 to $6,000 in revenue and a course at Ridgeline would not
have that capability.
Bob Myers, address on file, stated he lived in the colony adjacent to OPA. He
happened to live above the property that was formerly Santiago Tennis and Swim
Club that had been tied into Ridgeline many years ago. It was currently vacant land
and subdivided into 7 lots and only one home had been built on the property. The
property had gone up in value and had changed hands after it was subdivided 6 times.
His concern was he had watched builders on a much smaller property, 7 acres and 7
homes were supposed to be built, only one was built and he lived there 20 years. The
swim club came down 2 years after he moved there. He moved there for the rural
atmosphere and for the swim club. A lot of money was made with the property
exchanges. His concern was two fold, the next project Rio Santiago, that was not
being discussed, but just the fashion of how they were doing it and speaking about
exchanging or giving donations and so on and secondly if re-zoned the price of the
property would go up tremendously. He was not certain how much they had paid for
it but it could be worth SO million dollars. They were handing over a lot of money to
a developer just by making the land 39 buildable lots. Other people had stated that
they should review the mitigating value of open space or recreational space to the
community. It looked good, sounded good, but maybe would not taste good when it
came down to funding and building.
Chuck McNees, address on file, stated he lived in the City not the County and he
could vote. When he moved away 3 years ago he was involved with trails and sat on
the board for many years and came before the Planning Commission many times and
he only recognized two faces that were there previously. The Councils changed, the
Planning Commissions changed and they had a fiduciary duty to uphold what was
taking place in the community. What he was going to speak about got blown away
by people like Shirley Grindle, who sat on the board, said they meant this and this
also, the specific plan from 1973 was his bible. He tried to protect it as a resident of
OPA. He sat in the chamber for many occasions and listened to hours of debate.
Many of the issues dealt with developers who came to the City from the beach areas
Page 26 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
27 of 38
and other areas in hopes of converting open space to development. Serrano Heights
was a perfect example of what could happen when focus was lost. The Planning
Commission okayed a plan and the developer went away, then they came back and
sold it and a completely different plan was developed. It was not good. Another
developer came in, Ridgeline, in the area they spoke of and went to the Planning .
Commission, and the City Council, and the City Council extracted mitigation after
mitigation and they really ran them through the ringer, trails and they went to OPA
and there was no fighting. He was hearing from the City Attorney that they threw out
the board of directors, who was there if they put it just to the City. The Commission
had not lived in OPA and had seen the plan as much as they had. It was serious stuff
that they were speaking o£ Ask for the facts, the specific facts.
Omar Dandish, address on file, stated he was a member of ECOC, the Equestrian
Coalition of Orange County and the board had spent a lot of time in the community
preserving the equestrian lifestyle and they had done it for many reasons. They spent
time understanding what generations had as part of their heritage for horses and what
they wanted for the future. They assisted with advocacy, education, promotion of
community service, and they looked at places like OPA as being a gem. It was part
of their heritage. What they had before them was a tough decision, a decision with
many facets, and certainly there were very nice architectural rendering and a lot of
things to look at. The base issue was zoning. They needed to figure out a few things.
The economic studies had not revealed a picture. The area had been open space for a
very long time and the developers knew that when they bought it. They had in their
preservation, their heritage, rights and they had in front of them the vision they
wanted set and they were asking for the Commission's support. It was not about a lot
of things, but about preserving for the future; to use the area as open space, and not
only for the residents of OPA. There were families present with grown children and
there were exceptional generations to come and he asked that they take a close review
from a very specific point of view. Would re-zoning work, a zoning change was
being requested, and what they would do for the future was a big decision they would
make. The OPA board had worked very closely with the developer on an alternate
plan.
Connie Bowin, address on file, stated she was a resident of OPA and for about 5
months she was an active member of the group Save the Arena, and they had been
working to ensure the Ridgeline project was approved and the Sully Miller arena was
donated to anon-profit. The arena could finally be a permanent facility for OPA.
Without the arena, the equestrian community could change just like Villa Park had.
They had reviewed at length the specifics of the donation and they understood that if
the project was approved the licensed arena would be donated and understood denial
of Ridgeline meant that at anytime whoever owned the property could close the arena
and build homes there. As stables and equestrian facilities continued to close
throughout the region, the arena donation created an incredible opportunity for OPA
to control its destiny as a rural equestrian community. She hoped the Commission
supported the Ridgeline property and would preserve a fundamental piece of OPA
that had been established in 1928. Everyone feared change, it disturbed their comfort
zone and they knew the Ridgeline property would change no matter what. Let's seal
the deal and save the arena, keep the equestrian aspect alive and as a horse woman
Page 27 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
28 of 38
who believed in the community, she urged them to cast a vote in support of the
equestrian community.
Dennis Given, speaker not present.
Alice Sorensen, address on file, stated she had done a lot of riding in OPA and she
was a life time resident of Orange County and she rode since the age of 5. She had
contributed over 17 years of service to the OC Regional Recreational Trails
Committee and spent 5 years on the State of California Riding and Hiking Committee
and 10 years of service as a Park Ranger Reserve for OC and she had been a past
officer of the Friends of Harbors Beaches and Parks, non-profit. She had spent 18
years and was the founding member of the Equestrian docent for the nature
conservancy and she was a member of the Nature Conservancy Legacy Club. She
hoped from hearing that they could tell she was dedicated to the environment and as
trails were her specialty. She had reviewed the proposed project at great lengths and
the trails were designed and were appropriate for the uses the project anticipated them
for. The plan called for small feeder trails to connect to City and County trails. The
trails lead to road systems. Based on her experience, she felt the internal trails
planned for Ridgeline would mostly be used by the homeowners of Ridgeline. The
public perimeter trails would be used by OPA residents and those who trailered in to
ride with friends in the area. The trails were designed as not to be over built and were
understated and complimented the project. She hoped her insight was helpful.
Gary Abraham, address on file, stated the OPA was a great place to live. It was not
without its own idiosyncrasies and controversy. The OPA had a voluntary HOA,
unlike most HOA's. OPA collected dues from only about one-quarter of its residents
and most residents would not receive copies of HOA bylaws or annual reports. The
HOA operated within a smaller circle of community residents. Recently the OPA had
been biased on certain issues pertaining to community growth and only marketed one
side of an issue to its residents. There were those who supported the Ridgeline
project and his response to the issue was a new entity, Responsible Residents of OPA,
or RROPA. It was a group formed for the good of the community regardless of
individual viewpoints. It was founded to seek new ways to bring unity to the OPA
community through communication and collaboration and to maintain an honest and
positive respectful discourse between all OPA residents, and to ensure land use and
planning maintained property rights and the unique rural feel of OPA. RROPA's
belief was that polarization occurred from lack of information. Open and respectful
communication was good for the community and it was important that an HOA board
report complete and factual information to the community in order for those
community members to come to decisions based on facts. RROPA was a by product
of the OPA HOA board that had not properly communicated all the facts concerning
Ridgeline to the entire community. RROPA launched its own website called Getting
the Facts to Answer Community Questions that were free of bias and negativity.
RROPA had not taken a position on the proposed project.
Laurie Marine, address on file, stated she lived downstream of the proposed
development right on Handy Creek and she had approximately 400' of footage along
the creek and she shuttered to think what all the pavement would do to the first flush
Page 28 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
29 of 38
when it came down the creek. She wanted to note a correction and she wanted to
mention what she had heard about the trail. At Coyote Lane there was no trail or
easement, it was private property. The property was zoned open space and if it was
not, the applicant would not be asking for a zone change. If the Commission agreed
that it was open space they must require mitigation. She agreed with many of the
prior respondents and possibly having a Nike sponsor or Vic Braden type person
make the facility a profitable venture. She had heard that the community had asked
for a small covered arena and a small kiddy park, bathrooms and meeting facilities all
paid for by the developer to mitigate the loss of recreational open space. She
suggested keeping the swimming pool and tennis courts and possibly adding a putting
green, the recreational space that everyone was asking for. It was what the residents
wanted in exchange for residential development and she asked that the Commission
deny the zone change.
Bob Kirkby, address on file, stated he had been a resident of Orange for 58 years and
had been a resident of OPA. He was shocked to see the photo of the golf course on a
dried out map. The reason it was dried out was that a speculator bought the property
and killed the golf course. The reason it could not run as a golf course was because
the speculator paid 20 million dollars for the piece of dirt and there could not be a
golf course on a 20 million dollar piece of dirt. The speculator had to change the
zoning so he could build houses and make money. He would not buy the home next
to them and put in a liquor store and come down and ask for a zoning change. The
developer was changing the zoning of the land. He had bought his home because the
golf course existed. He was not a horse rider; all the developer could think was that
all they needed to give was a piece of dirt for their horses. He used the swimming
pool to teach his son to swim and he used the golf course to play golf. There was no
mitigation. When zoning was changed, it would not be developed. All the wonderful
plans, he would sell it right away to someone else who would want to build it. It was
one of the last pieces of open land in Orange County and the Commission could not
change the zoning, it was a terrible idea, it would be forever.
Erin. Chell, address on file, stated she missed the pool and the families and the
bonding of the families. They had great times there and both her children learned to
swim there. Her husband and son enjoyed golfing and she missed the community
time they had there. She valued her neighbors and their opinions who wanted to have
the zoning remain as it was. Please consider their hearts, she loved the community
and the proposal was out of control, it looked great but things would get tricky.
David Chell, address on file, stated his family moved there from Costa Mesa as they
had dealt with another developer who had wanted to build a multi forty story building
in their backyard and they would be looking down at them. They moved to OPA for
the rural community. The developer had turned that area into looking like a piece of
junk to force the City into doing something. It could not be a golf course, and he
turned it into that. It had been a viable golf course, country club and pool and now it
was junk and they needed to do something. The developer had plans and he wanted
to change the Sully Miller area and build a senior living that was not part of the
zoning either and he wanted to change zoning upon zoning. He had changed zoning
before, going from agricultural to commercial and had made a lot of money. They
Page 29 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
30 of 38
were here because zoning needed to be changed, if zoning was not changed, homes
could not be built and the developer had no right to build houses, not until zoning was
changed. The developer had not worked with the board or the people who lived in
OPA, most of the public speakers were against the project. The developer was not
working with them; it was the developer's plan not the resident's plan. Send the
project back, they needed to deal with the situation and not allow the developer to
come in and do what he wanted to do.
Bryon Meyer, address on file, stated he was a 12 year resident of OPA and founding
member of RROPA. He and his fellow resident, Russ Garcia, founded RROPA last
year after they received a November 2008 letter from an Orange City attorney to
Ridgeline property owner and OPA resident, John Martin, and to OPA board
president, Tom Davidson. The letter stated the OPA Association Board of Directors
would not act in its capacity as OPA planning committee during the review of
Ridgeline Estates and the Rio Santiago projects. The letter noted that the level of
personal animosity had made it impossible for the OPA to operate, and he quoted "the
basic standards of impartiality" in its advisory function to the City Council or
Planning Commission. In addition there would be no penalty to JMI, the company
owned by John Martin, for any failure to submit plans to OPA for review. Some
residents of OPA had strong views of the JMI project and RROPA was formed as he
felt there was nowhere in the community to gain facts and he had become concerned
with the OPA's bias on the issue and that they were not providing the community
with all the facts that all of them as individuals could come to a decision on and how
they felt individually and in the best interest of the community. RROPA attempted to
be a fair voice in the community so all viewpoints could occur and the key goal was
to answer community questions, but only with verifiable and factual information,
without bias and conjecture. Although he and Russ had their own individual views,
they would avoid using RROPA as a vehicle for their own opinions. RROPA was
officially incorporated on May 7, 2009 and had a SOlc for non-profit status and had
their own website that received more than 100 new visitors each week.
Reed Royalty, address on file, stated he was president of the Orange County
Taxpayers Association. He had been present as he sensed some real value for the
taxpayers in the area. He had a surprisingly personal reaction when he began looking
into the matter. He lived in Stoneridge Estates in San Juan Capistrano, similar to the
OPA; they had horse trails and a riding area across the street from his home. He was
one of the first people to move into the community, it was nice but had dusty, .
unimproved areas, similar to what Ridgeline currently looked like. It was now built
up and he liked it. There was no undeveloped open space that would attract vagrants
and unwelcome visitors. He thought they would like the Ridgeline area once it was
built out. He liked the neighborhood he lived in with all the nice homes and in a
protected area from unwelcome uses. Some overzealous regulatory body might
dictate what happened to that property and the Ridgeline development could protect
the community from that. As part of the taxpayer association, he liked when public
benefits were provided by private money and the recreational amenities provided by
the proposal were non-public supported benefits to the community. He liked that it
was free money. The developer paid for improvements to Handy Creek and the trail
upgrades would be provided by private money, not taxpayer's dollars. The Sully
Page 30 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
31 of 38
Miller development was free money. They also fought for property rights and he
learned that there were already 100 restrictions on the Ridgeline plan and he hoped
the developer was really, really rich, but even if he was, it would be unfair to pile
more restrictions on them. It would be unwise, as the City might be at the tipping
point where they made the project unviable and may lose the opportunity to improve
the community and welcome unwanted uses. The City was being offered free money
for public improvements.
Brian Starr, address on file, stated he was representing the building industry of
Orange County. They were a trade association representing one thousand companies
that employed over 100,000 men and women in the home building industry. BIA
generally had not gotten involved in individual project entitlements, but he was
present to speak about an important component in the proposed project. The old
Ridgeline nine hole course, tennis courts and swimming pool was never a public
recreational facility. It was always a private facility open to anyone, not just OPA
residents, it was either a dues paying member or a one time pay user. City Staff had
determined that the municipal code for the mitigation of public open space and
recreational space applied to Ridgeline and as such Ridgeline was required to provide
3.6 acres of recreational open space land to the City. The applicant has agreed to
provide an important public recreational space on what would be 6 times more than
the City's requirement. The BIA viewed that as an act of punitive proportions as
Staff had dismissed the importance of the on site amenities and had also insisted that
the applicant pay an additional $400,000 open space park land fees to the City. The
Staff Report to the Planning Commission and he quoted, "the City's accounting of
public park land extended to public City parks would not account for or include
private pay or use facilities, hence if the project were to be approved, the loss of open
space would not numerically affect the City's park land goals". That was an
important part as there was not a City perceived impact with the removal of the golf .
course and swim club. For pay facilities were not the same as facilities generally
open to the public without the needed for use payments, therefore, the trail and ride-in
benefits must be weighed differently. The developer deserved credit for the ride-in
only arena and trails that he would be providing at Ridgeline. BIA was greatly
concerned with the exaction tactic and future developments.
Lamarr Banks, address on file, stated he was a resident of Orange and his overall
assessment of the project was that it met the Land Use requirements of the OPA plan.
It appeared that it was designed to respectfully compliment and enhance the
neighborhood. From the barn design to the 1 acre lots as well as the on-site
recreational facilities, Ridgeline appeared to fit within the OPA's appeal. He also
learned of John Martin's offering of giving back to the community through the Sully
Miller arena donation to anon-profit organization and he understood the value of an
are~ia to the community. He was a real estate appraiser and understood the value of
the land donation to ensure the rural nature of the OPA. He supported the plan on the
table and it was good for the community and the City.
Raul Morales, address on file, stated he had used the golf course for over 20 years
before moving to OPA. He had seen kids play there and the kid camps and it was
great but things have changed. He tried to stay neutral and he had attended a lot of
Page 31 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
32 of'38
meetings and he had gotten booed by both sides, he and his wife tried to stay neutral
on the issue. About 4 to 5 months ago when things got a bit heated, when the Sully
Miller property was put up as a donation, he looked at that as a focal point for his
decision and he liked what he saw. It would be a great amenity to the community and
he could not see negatives, although there was a lot of opposition. He made notes
about comments made such as a vast majority, 95% of the people, and he made his
own assumptions and had spoken with a lot of people on both sides of the issue and
he felt it was 50/50 and if every door was not knocked on, the real number would not
be known. There was a lot of propaganda going on for both sides, and unless
someone conducted a study that got the right number, they would not know what the
true sentiment was. There were many people who lived there that were not present
and they had other things to do. He thought it was important to say a few words on
behalf of John Martin and the program he created. It would be a pillar of the
community.
John Cox, address on file, stated he was the OPA historian. In 1971 sixteen members
of the community, in an effort to preserve and protect their community from
overdevelopment, sat around their kitchen tables and drafted the OPA community
plan which was the framework for the specific plan that had been prepared by J.L. .
Webb Planning in 1973 and ratified by the community. The OPA residents expressed
their resolve to preserve and protect, for all the citizens of Orange, the recreational
open space known then as the Lazy B Golf Ranch and now known as Ridgeline
Country Club. They wrote in the plan that the plan advocated the permanent
retention of the 34 acre golf course within OPA. If the private owner could not
sustain a viable economic return, public acquisition was suggested. The document
adopted by the county board and City Council served them well for 37 years and yet
the developer would have the City ignore it. The copy with its rounded corners and
heavily worn and soiled covers had been carried around like a preacher would his
bible; maybe it belonged to former members that were dedicated vanguards of the
OPA community. He stood before them with that same resolve and the
Commissioners had an opportunity and obligation to the citizens of Orange to protect
their recreational opportunities. The developer must use the land as currently zoned
or be held accountable to mitigate the loss. He recommended that they deny a zoning
change.
Sheryl Martin, address on file, stated she grew up in Orange and graduated from
Orange High School and was familiar with the area. To take away the wide open
spaces and those were areas she had grown up in, had done things she was not
supposed to do, her two kids had been there and thank god they left. The charm of '
Orange was being taken away and she could have stated ditto to everyone else's
comments, but everyone needed to speak. The housing was being added and it could
not be taken away, more kids would be added to the school system that could not hold
them. The houses were being added. The guy that was coming in was giving 3.9
acres back to the non-profit and putting 39 homes in; he was not giving much back.
What was in it for the residents and for the City? She voted for the Commissioners
and she wanted to keep voting for them, but if they were not going to do what was in
the best interest of them, they would get someone in there that would. Make it a park.
Page 32 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
33 of 38
Rod Stone, address on file, stated he grew up playing golf and tennis, his daughter
swam, and hit her first golf ball and went to the tennis club when she was out of
school. People were correct when they stated the property was not in that bad of
shape. He had family members that grew up there playing golf and another who went
to school on a tennis scholarship. There was not much of that land left in Orange. If
they took it away they would never get it back. It had been done once; the mistake
had been made at Santiago, right off of Jamestown abutting his development. Do not
let the developers come in. The developer bought the property knowing what it was
and how it was zoned, knowing the risk he took and that it had been turned down to
other people wanting to develop it. The developer thought he could force it down .
their throats by offering an arena. The arena was already there, he was not giving
anything back, it had been used for 10 years and he was offering to let them keep
what they had if they gave him what he wanted. Sully Miller allowed the community
to use the arena and the developer was not making a big concession. It stated if the
developer could not pull building permits, it would not be deeded over to them, he
could flip the land and they could lose the land, just because someone would let them
get a windfall profit.
Sharon Butterfield, address on file, stated she believed in the sanctity of property
rights, but the property owner must abide by the zoning regulations that were in place
when the property was purchased. She could probably maximize ,her property by
building a high rise hotel where her home was, however, the zoning regulations
would not permit that. The developer who purchased the property probably paid less
due to the zoning of recreational open space, meaning that the existing use, golf
course, tennis course and swimming pool were permitted uses that the property owner
could continue. It was the developer's choice to shut down the recreational functions.
He had not had the right to build homes on that property. Imagine if neighbors asked
to change zoning on their properties and how that would change the complexion of
their communities. Think of it as the no re-zone zone.
Madison Klorstad, address on file, stated she grew up horseback riding and her
brother taught her how to golf at Ridgeline and she learned to swim at the pool. To
remove 52 acres of recreational open space bothered her because future generations
would not enjoy the community she grew up enjoying and she was amazed that some
of the people who had spoken were not OPA residents. It bothered her because they
were not a part of the community and the people, not all of them, but some were new
residents of the community and had not grown up there. They had not experienced the
community before the golf course was closed. Instead of re-zoning they should
consider some of the other options.
Bill Klorstad, address on file, stated he was a 25 year community member of OPA
and also a member of the Chamber of Commerce. The City of Orange was about 100
acres short of the recreational open space under State regulations. The City might be
engaging in new opportunities for parks and land in the future, but if the City was
going to give up 52 acres of open space, the City needed to get 52 acres of
recreational open space in return. Beyond the State requirements there was also the
matter of good governing. The citizens of Orange had stated that they wanted to
protect their open space. Candidates for City Council ran for three issues, taxes,
Page 33 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
34 of 38
public safety and protecting parks and open spaces. Do the right thing and protect the .
City's open spaces and deny the applicant's request.
Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was the Vice President of OPA and she had
submitted a letter that the Commissioners should have. She was a 17 year member of
the Orange Chamber of Commerce. The balance and quality of life was a priority for
her. Ridgeline was not zoned for homes; the specific plan that was implemented was
a master plan that would take care of future issues that would come up such as
Ridgeline. The citizens knew they had to protect the area and how the OPA specific
plan came to be. As a master plan in the early 1970s, Broadmoor, Lazy Creek, and
Pheasant Run, were all constructed prior to the plan. To stop further, uncontrollable
impacts, the plan was developed. For 30 years plus it worked. A builder came, the
Reserve, and it was proposed at a school site the OPA board agreed to the project and
it was reviewed by the OPA advisory committee. The reserve was the precedent to
not approve the zone change for Ridgeline. The Reserve HOA had not opened its
gates to the trails and it amended the CC&R's for the keeping of animals and no
horses live there. Those homes were in excess of 5,000 square feet and mostly on 1
acres lots or some on '/2 acres on Santiago Road to buffer the noise. Unforeseen
consequences could not happen again. As Kathy Lucas spoke about being a
developer and Pheasant Run, there was disintegration of the horse lifestyle and the
controversy of people who moved into a community who were equestrians and those
who had not owned horses. The ride-in arena that was proposed was on a residential
lot.
Carolyn Aliotta, address on file, stated the applicant's friends have made a big deal
about reporting the fact in expensive ads and mailers and as those facts were
supposed to be unbiased, she knew from the EIR responses that the creator of those
ads was a John Martin supporter. The developer never had an open and honest
discussion with the OPA board and the real estate committee, never. The developer
had not named the non-profit he would donate the arena to, but she suspected they
had someone in mind. The citizens of Orange had not wanted to bail out the investors
for a land grant gone wrong. Zoning ordinances existed to protect the property values
of everyone. If she wanted to build a hotel in here backyard, the City would tell her
no, her neighbors should not suffer the noise .and congestion it would bring. No one
present from OPA who opposed the project was being paid. On the other hand, the
developer was adding up a lot of billable hours from his crowd. The S curve on
Meads was not a safe street and would 4 years of construction be safer. She also
noted that the EIR mentioned the air quality during construction, and the homeowners
would not only endure years of construction and traffic, they would also not be able
to breathe. The developer expected the City or the OPA board and OPCC to maintain
1 mile of trails, the HOA would maintain .7 of trails -thanks for that. Zoning
protected the integrity of the neighborhood, and it could not do that if it could simply
be changed because well connected investors asked for a change. The OPA board
had been protecting the community for over 40 years and the same trails and
amenities the developer would tout to prospective buyers existed because OPA made
them happen and the board deserved a voice in the discussion. Please deny the
proposed project and send the developer back to the community for a real two sided
discussion.
Page 34 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
35 of 38
Lawrence Simon, address on file, stated he purchased in OPA 15 years ago due to the
private, quite cul-de-sac that they lived on and it would no longer exist with the
proposed development. One of the arguments he had heard was that the developer
had spent a lot of money on the property and deserved to make a profit. He was not
opposed to anyone making a profit as long as it was not at his expense or at the
expense of the community. The Planning Commission had the unique opportunity to
save the open space and do something wonderful with it, and building homes on it
was not one of them and he urged them to vote no on the zoning change.
Mark Hedg_ebeth, speaker not present.
Dave Swoish, address on file, thanked the Commission for everything they had done
for the City. He was present as an investor, he was a business owner and he had
invested in approximately 50 residential and commercial properties in 15 to 16 states.
He knew what he spoke of and there was probably several investors and interested
parties present. When the property was purchased by the developer, he had an
opinion about what would happen, and what he thought would occur had happened.
The tennis players were run out of the club; the pool was shut down and the property
was run into the ground so all the golfers went away. He then claimed that the
property would not work. The developer took a gamble and it was a mistake.
Personally he and some investors purchased an apartment property in Sacramento, a
condo conversion project, they were going to convert apartments into condos and
earn more money, but it required a zoning change. It was a calculated risk and he
was turned down by their Planning Commission and they lost about 4 '/z million
dollars, were they happy about that, no; but you win some you lose some. He thought
it was a mistake the developer made, the developer had bought the property without
any intention but to develop the property and his guess was that the present developer
would never develop it. He would cut his losses and sell it to the next guy if and
when the approval was received. He had been at a golf tournament recently and had
asked other players if they had played at Ridgeline and all of them stated they had and
he took homage of that fact. .
Mark Sandford, address on file, stated he lived directly across the proposed
development and was against the project and probably one of the most directly
affected by the project. 39 multi-million dollar homes would be a good value to
them, but he was against it for numerous reasons. He had a speech that he had
planned tonight and he decided not to read that. He had listened to all the comments
and there were many inconsistencies, first on the Meads Avenue trail being safe, it
was not a safe trail and a lot of things that had been said were not true. He built the
trail and fencing in 1988 and they had dealt with the City and County and he had
deeded some land for that trail and he could tell them all about that. In .1991 and
1992 he served on the Master Plan of Trails Committee and they had a myriad of
trails out there and the committee had put trails together that conformed. There were
a number of other issues, on the economics he could take a McDonalds and run it
down and lose money on it, it was a given. The golf course was a spirit of a club and
what they were listening to was the spirit of a community. It was not only the people
who lived in OPA, but in the City and County that went there to recreate. There were
many events there. His daughter was in Junior National Tennis tournaments and
Page 35 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
36 of 38
everywhere he went people spoke of Ridgeline Country Club. The problem was that
the project had not fit and they could not afford to lose the recreational opportunities
without mitigation. The fastball right down the plate was that the developer needed
zoning and zoning without mitigation was the key.
Sharon Mule, address on file, stated as a member of the OPA community for over 30
years she had participated in and witnessed the untiring efforts of her community
attempting to stave off the greed of developers and not always with success. Many
years ago when Fieldstone came in, OPA enthusiastically embraced them regarding
the Sully Miller property and the City had turned them down. Now enters John
Martin who had shut down a community asset, as steeped in history as Irvine Park
and the Circle of Orange. It was better than having a classy golf course, or a snobby
temlis and swim club. It was kick back and comfortable for kids and adults alike and
it was wholesome and rural. People from the surrounding areas enjoyed it as much as
the OPA residents had. The City of Orange should not lose sight of the fact that OPA
was part of the City's image. The project negatively impacted not only OPA but the
City itself. Where else in the City had a facility, which John Martin had chained the
gate to, existed? OPA needed and cherished Ridgeline and his offer to exchange
what they had for a mere portion of what Fieldstone had once offered them was
insulting. She urged the Planning Commission to realize the detrimental impact re-
zoning would have on the community and it was a fight they could not lose.
Art Bass, address on file, stated he was a business owner in Tustin. He was the
president of the Colony Community Association and lived adjacent to the riding arena
that was being discussed. He heard a lot of things said tonight and many things that
sounded naive. For instance the comment that there was a single resident in OPA that
was the developer and the investor and he believed there were many people investing
in the project. To consider that 160 some acres were purchased with the
understanding that only 15% had been zoned for homes, someone had an agenda and
they knew how they would get the zoning. There was a plan. He was not certain
what the agenda was. A comment about the arena donation and making it a gift, it
was clear that the developer's computers put together a very nice presentation and
that money had been spent on all of that. He owned Powerpoint, and a computer and
had the ability to put on a presentation, but the concept of giving a gift was interesting
and maybe the developers should google the word gift, the gift they were giving was
comparable to giving his mother a Honda Civic understanding she would have a
contractual agreement to never move in with him and it seemed absurd that the
developer could call it a gift. The concept of hours of analysis being put into it left
them with the rest of their lives to live with that decision; the concept of land being
developed next to his property, property that had been subdivided multiple times with
that land changing hands several times. No one could get projects past the Planning
Commission or make money through the sale of the land. The Colony Community
made lots of money selling land use easements and he would want that to continue. It
was a substantially larger area.
Jack Eidt, address on file, stated he was an urban planner with Wild Heritage Planners
and was also on the board of the Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. He was
present to implore the Commission that there was an excellent opportunity with the
Page 36 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2010
37 of 38
project to take part in comprehensive planning. Taking it piecemeal, starting with
Ridgeline, and connecting it with Sully Miller and later Rio Santiago, they would be
losing the opportunity and giving up a chance to bring both sides together. That
would be the important thing in urban planning. What had been done in the past that
the OPA Real Estate Board had gotten together with the City and consultants and
came up with a plan and he had seen the plan and he felt it was awin-win plan. It
protected open space and green infrastructure while maintaining neighborhood
integrity, while allowing the developer opportunities for development. Currently the
land was considered open space and zoned recreational open space; to state there was
only one use, there were many other uses that could be feasible and the EIR had
completed a study on golf courses, there were agricultural, stables, educational
facilities and many more options. Basically the 1973 OPA plan was not a plan that
was necessarily consistent with the General Plan and it was questionable whether it
could be considered an amendment. The land use designation could not guarantee the
developer vested rights. It was a chance to work together with the community and the
developer and to bring them together. There were two other projects being
considered and he felt the Planning Commission needed to reject the proposed
project.
Chair Whitaker stated it was just after 11:00 p.m. and he had several cards for
speakers that would be allowed to speak at the next meeting:
Michelle Williams
Fran Klovstand
Brian Gwartz
Jane Canseco
Rob Lindsay
Lee Gislason
Josh Stein
George Widley
Pam Alexander
Gina Scott
Lance Schultz
Richard Siebert
Maria Meyer
Rose Ellen Cunningham
Bob Cunningham
Don Baddorf
Mike Winklepleck
Kate Klimow
Lynn Canton
The next meeting would be field on May 17, 2010 and he asked if there were any
other items that had been noticed for that meeting?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there was an Agenda item for the May 17, 2010 that
was for the Block at Orange and they would want that item kept on that Agenda. The
applicant was on a time frame to obtain their entitlements.
Chair Whitaker stated the meeting would be continued to May 17, 2010.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to continue to a date certain, Draft EIR 1788-
07, General Plan Amendment No. 2007-0001, Zone Change No. 1243-07, Tentative
Tract Map 0019-07 (also known as tentative tract map 17167), Development
Agreement 5600, MSP No. 0496-07 and DRC No. 4207-07-Ridgeline Equestrian
Estates.
Page 37 of 38 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
May 3, 2010
38 of 38
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
(4) ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting
scheduled for Monday, May 17, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting adjourned @ 11:03 p.m.
Page 38 of 38 Pages