2010 - June 7Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 1 of 35
Minutes
Planning Commission June 7, 2010
City of Orange 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
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 @ 6:51 p.m. with a review of the
Agenda.
Item No. 1, Minutes from the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2010. No changes or
corrections were noted.
Item No. 2, Minutes from the Regular Meeting of May 17, 2010. No changes or
corrections were noted. Commissioner Cunningham would abstain from the vote, as he
was absent from the meeting on May 17, 2010.
Chair Whitaker stated on Item No. 4, Thrill It Entertainment, he would want to move the
item up in the Agenda as it had a lot less meat to it and he would want it heard prior to
Item No. 3, Ridgeline. He asked if there would be a representative from the Police
Department present. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated no, there was no alcohol
related requests on the item. Chair Whitaker stated he would have a few questions.
Commissioner Merino stated he would wait to hear from the applicant and for the
presentation of the item before he came up with any questions.
Item No. 3, Ridgeline. Commissioner Steiner asked what the procedure would be on the
remainder of the hearing for the item. Chair Whitaker stated the Public Hearing had been
closed at the last meeting and they would proceed with the applicant's rebuttal, questions
from the Commission, close the Public Hearing and then the item would be brought back
for any additional questions for Staff and then back to the Commission for further
discussion. He stated after all questions were asked, the Commission could have their
discussion; as there were a lot of moving parts to the Ridgeline item he would go through
the issues from the Staff Report and allow each Commissioner to make their comments.
There were 8 main issue items and some were larger than others. On the General Plan
issue, on page 16, he would start with the General Plan Amendment, then to zoning. He
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 2 of 35
would follow the order of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Merino stated he was prepared to share his comments and move on each
issue. Chair Whitaker asked if each issue 3, 4, etc. could be moved on separately?
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated it was o.k. to discuss each issue separately,
but they could not make a motion on each separately. Commissioner Merino stated he
had understood from the previous meeting that each issue would be voted on separately.
Mr. Sheatz stated some of the areas were issue areas, but separate motions were not.
needed. Commissioner Merino stated he would be open to changes on any motion he
made.
Mr. Sheatz stated each issue area, such as residential lots, would not warrant a motion.
Commissioner Merino stated, in the Staff Report, there were 5 areas and he had
understood that each area could be moved on. Chair Whitaker stated he would go
through each issue and a Commissioner could make a recommendation to pass or not
pass that issue; or to make changes. Commissioner Merino stated he could make a
motion and there could be further discussion about the motion. Chair Whitaker suggested
the discussion could continue for an issue and a motion could be crafted after all the
discussion was heard.
Commissioner Imboden stated his only concern with a recommendation or motion being
made individually was that by the time they reached discussion on issue #4, they might
have closed it with their recommendation on a prior issue that related to issue #4. Chair
Whitaker stated issues 1 and 2 where related to each other, he would allow the
Commissioners to use their discretion on making recommendations.
Administrative Session closed at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON
MAY 3, 2010
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning
Commission meeting on May 3, 2010 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 3 of 35
(2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON
MAY 17, 2010
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Planning
Commission meeting on May 17, 2010 as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cunningham
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Whitaker stated the next item on the Agenda was Ridgeline and with the
Commissioners indulgence, considering there was a lot of meat to that item, Item No. 4
could end up being heard at 1:00 a.m. He preferred a change in the order of the agenda
and asked for a motion to that change.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to change the order of items on the agenda, to
move Item No. 4 to be heard prior to Item No. 3.
SECOND: Commissioner Merino
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting
CONTINUED ITEM:
June 7, 2010
Page 4 of 35
(3) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1788-07, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-0001, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1243-07,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0019-07 (ALSO KNOWN AS TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 17167), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5600, MAJOR
SITE PLAN N0.0496-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
4207-07 - RIDGELINE EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
Continued from the May 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 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 miles 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
Envirorunental 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 opened the hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission
and provide his rebuttal statement.
Ken Ryan, address on file, stated the Ridgeline response would focus on what they had
heard and the few key issues that were raised. Mr. Ryan presented a Powerpoint. He was
honored to work in the City of Orange and had for many years and one thing he had
learned was that Orange residents were passionate about their community. There was
great pride in the neighborhoods and the diversity and if you asked OPA residents where
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 5 of 35
the best place to live was, residents would tell you it was OPA. If that same question was
asked of someone who lived on Center or Shaffer they would tell you that was the best
place to live. The City of Orange had an aspect that each individual community believed
in and were passionate about their neighborhoods. He stated unfortunately sometimes
passions overshadowed the truth and fortunately the Planning Commission and City
Council had done a good job over the years in separating the emotion from the facts and
in doing the right thing. He understood the emotional fond memories in using a private
pay to play private recreational facility and having it no longer be available and unable to
sustain itself economically. That fact would not change it into a public park and
recreation area. Based on the testimony and the public campaign that had been done by a
very well known firm that had been hired by some who were opposed to the project, he
believed it was unfortunate that, in limited circles, some misinformation and some
misleading information had circulated.
Mr. Ryan stated he would speak about the facts and begin with the General Plan. In
1971, California Legislature directed that a City's zoning and subdivisions must be
consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. In 1990, the Supreme Court held that
the General Plan was the Constitution of all future developments. It started with the
General Plan, that was the hierarchy. A California Court confirmed that the General Plan
was the single most important planning document. All zoning had to conform to the
General Plan. It was the same plan that one of the public speakers, Mr. Wirtz, believed
had brought up a t-shirt that stated honor the OPA Plan. It was the same plan that
allowed for 1 acre lots and the same plan of one of the original authors of the plan,
Shirley Grindle, who so eloquently testified that if a golf course went away that 1 acre
lots would be allowed. It was the same plan that the City Attorney, in a December letter,
during the annexation of 1985, long time OPA leader Bob Bennyhoff was quoted "the
OPA community had no objection to down zoning going from 1 acre lots to the open
space during the annexation of 1985, however, would be looking at zoning of R1-43-560
1 acre lots in the event the property was ever sold". The City had just spent 5 years
updating the General Plan and in that process the City endorsed and acknowledged that
the long standing OPA Plan that was adopted as part of the General Plan was the guiding
development for the area. As stated and reinforced by the City Attorney in a letter dated
December 22, 2009, the 1973 City Council's resolution 39-15 adopted the plan as a part
of the Land Use Element to be included in a General Plan for the City of Orange. The
resolution had no ambiguity and it was clear in upholding the Planning Commission's
recommendation for 1 acre lots and open space for the site, approving and adopting a
Land Use Element of the General Plan for a portion of the City and adjacent
unincorporated planning area known as Orange Park Acres. That was what the action
was all about, not changing the intent or the original letter of the approvals. It was about
cleaning up documentation and having a document that accurately reflected the 1973 City
Council action that had never been changed.
Mr. Ryan stated Mr. Stein had presented an idea that in 1989 when the General Plan
update occurred it should supercede the OPA plan of 1973. In 1989 there was no
discussion or action to eliminate the OPA plan or overturning of any of the resolutions.
The Land Use Plan that was colored green should have had a different marking
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 6 of 35
designating that 1 acre lots for the site were allowed, they could not have it both ways
and with the argument that the action in 1989 overturned everything, everyone sitting
behind him, whether in support and those who had concerns, probably would have a lot
of dialogue. They could not have it both ways and it was not the action in 1989 or the
most recent adoption in the General Plan Update, where again the OPA plan was
included as the Constitution for the area. One last item on the General Plan and he felt it
was very telling; as Commissioners they heard certain things over and over, if he had a
penny for each time someone had said to him follow the OPA plan he would be a rich
person and that had been the message communicated to the Ridgeline group from the
very beginning. No one ever said focus on zoning and ignore the OPA plan. The
argument in recent weeks had changed, why was that? He believed because 1 acre lots
were allowed and appropriate and supported by the authors of the OPA plan and
supported in several documents.
Mr. Ryan stated he would speak about zoning. There had been a lot of dialogue relative
to that during the last 2 hearings. He presented a chart and stated it showed before 1973
in the County the site had been designated agriculture and the zoning was E-41, 1 acre
estates. In 1973 with the adoption of the 1973 plan, other open space and low density 1
acre was the General Plan adoption. It was interesting that the zone remained E-41 1 acre
estates and remained that way for a very long time after that. In 1985 when the property
was annexed to the City, the General Plan remained the same and there was a small
annexation in 1977 for the construction of the club house and from 1973 to 1985 the site
was zoned 1 acre lots. The zone change occurred due to a land owner request for tax
purposes. In summary on that particular issue, the City Attorney's letter dated 12/22/09
determining the site, allowed for 1 acre lots and Mr. DeBerry's letter quoted the
annexation of record from the 1985 action. One of the other issues that they had heard
was what would occur if the developer sold the property? No matter who developed
Ridgeline, the Land Use would not change and that was why they spent so much time on
the documentation he was sharing.
Mr. Ryan stated he wanted to speak briefly about park requirements. There was a
discussion about the loss of recreation and park uses. He presented a slide outlining the
City's requirements. The Quimby Law required 39 lots x 3.11 persons per home x a
factor of 3 acres per 1,000, there would be .36 required; less than'/z acre of park space, or
for the developer to pay a fee of $370,734.00 for the project. What the proposed project
would provide was much more significant than the .36 acres. The proposal included 1.18
acres which included the natural open space, the ride-in only arena which would include
tie up areas, picnic benches, and water; there would also be trails throughout the project.
The Staff Report included important information and he read from the Staff Report in
reference to the impact on park space. He stated the area had never been assumed to be
public land, it was a privately run recreational facility similar to the bowling alley. When
the bowling alley changed, the City had not required another bowling alley to be built
elsewhere. The City had determined that there would be no impacts with the removal of
the golf course and tennis club, as they were private facilities. The Ridgeline area was
one of the richest park land areas in Orange County, with Santiago Park and Irvine
Regional Park and Upper Peters Canyon Park. The region was not devoid of public open
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 7 of 35
space. In the OPA Plan, the specifications for parks were that they had a very low
maintenance requirement, pasture land instead of highly manicured landscaping and
landscaping that provided service to the rural character environment and oriented to
community activities. He believed that the ride-in only arena fit into that category. They
had asked for 100% credit given the fact that the requirement was .36 acres and they
would be providing 3.53 acres. City Staff had stated that there would not be a credit for
that. They would be supportive if the Commission would weigh in on that, and if not,
respectfully continue with the argument in front of City Council. He believed that what
they were doing went beyond what was required and they should receive some credit and
acknowledgement for that.
Mr. Ryan stated there was also some discussion about replacing the 52 acres with 52
acres of recreation space, and he believed that was a violation of the Bill of Rights. It
would be a take and the Fifth Amendment was very clear that private property could not
be taken for public use, no matter how much they would want to force that on an
applicant. The City's requirement was .36 acres and Ridgeline would be providing 3.53
acres. He would also state that the City had touted private property rights for a long, long
time and there was certainly a process that they were in. It had not allowed for Willy nilly
planning and they had been working on the project for 5 years. They had gone before the
DRC, Parks and Recreations Commission, a third meeting of the Planning Commission,
and there was City Council in front of them. He understood that there was a process to
insure what was proposed was consistent and fit in with the community. It was also
important, as what they had heard was that residents had not wanted a public park, but
had heard to honor the plan, honor the OPA Plan and provide a project that adhered to
that document and celebrate the equestrian lifestyle.
Mr. Ryan stated there was also quite a bit of discussion about mitigation. There was
significant mitigation, a full EIR and within that EIR all impacts within that document
had been fully mitigated, except for short term impacts to air quality. The EIR was an
informational document. CEQA required that the EIR analyze and provide for specific
mitigation measures. Out of the 68 mitigation measures contained in the document, a
number of those were related to the open space and recreational aspect. Those were
specific mitigation measures to preserve and enhance existing scenic views. The storm
water situation would be a better situation than what existed currently with bio swales
and the provision of on-site water quality management. There was a provision for the
addition of equestrian fencing, trails and aride-in arena. There was a request to re-locate
the existing entrance to accommodate horse trailers. There were many mitigation
measures. There were also over 100 Conditions of Approval included in the Staff Report.
The .proposed project contained mitigation and responded very deeply to the issues with
open space and recreation.
Mr. Ryan stated in response to the comments regarding the golf course, he wanted to
reinforce that E.R.A., a very reputable firm that reviews economics, had been hired and
provided Staff with a report that stated even if there was a market fora 9 hole golf
course, getting the existing golf course up to grade would cost $4,610,000.00 with an
annual income projection of $215,000.00 and the time to realize the investment would be
Planning. Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 8 of 35
21 years. It was not feasible to go in that direction.
Mr. Ryan stated one of the key issues discussed was the arena site, which was not a
mitigation measure, it was not a development condition, and it was included in the
Development Agreement as a commitment and intent. It was a gift and the only aspect
related to Ridgeline and Rio Santiago. Current zoning allowed for the site was residential
development and the applicant was willing to deny his right to develop that parcel as he
believed the arena site was an important part of the OPA community. The Ridgeline
project contained 52 acres with 39 lots and the 3.9 acre gift they felt was fair. If they
went back in time to June 2009 with the Fieldstone project that contained 110 acres with
189 lots, way more than the 391ots, OPA had accepted the 7 acre site as part of that deal.
It was not a requirement, but a commitment of their client. Additionally attorneys from
both sides and supporters agreed with the language. Sometimes the legal language was
confusing, and instead of bullet items, they had developed a chart which gave the
specifics of the arena site donation. He presented the chart; the arena site which would
be donated to anon-profit organization if Ridgeline and Rio Santiago were approved by
the Orange City Council. The donation included the 3.9 acre licensed arena and the 3.7
acre agricultural area and the retail operation. If a lawsuit, initiative or referendum was
filed against the project, the developer could provide all of it or subdivide the property
and donate the 3.9 acre licensed arena. Lastly, if a lawsuit or referendum would be
successful against the project there would be no donation required and the arena, that was
zoned for residential, would move forward.
Mr. Ryan stated the last big issue that was heard was could they stop the process and
conduct more OPA meetings. He presented a chart that illustrated the community
surveys, neighborhood workshops and meetings that they had conducted over the last 2
years. They had also spent a great deal of time with the OPA Board and their various
committees. They listened and made many changes. The current plan had a 65% drop in
traffic than what had existed. Anew recreational facility, 1 mile of perimeter trails, an
internal trail system, environmental enhancements, 34 of the 39 lots contained equestrian
stables, and they paid attention to the architectural styles, fencing and all of those details.
It was important to note, in addition in 2008, as a result of a letter from the City Attorney,
the OPA Board was removed from the administrative review process. They remained in
touch and attempted to maintain a cordial relationship, but the action of some of the OPA
Board members, through the community action group, were not about compromise and
not about win win and he believed they were about attempting to stop the project. He
shared a quote from the City Attorney's letter: "It would be impossible to meet the basic
standards of impartiality and the OPA Board would not act in its capacity". As much as
those folks had come before the Planning Commission, the City Attorney had indicated
that they would not be part of the formal process. There was an incident that occurred on
October 14, 2008 he had just met with the OPA Real Estate Board and had been chastised
for not speaking with them more, etc., and late that evening he was presented with a plan
that the OPA Board had prepared. The very next day there was an ad that was purchased
that stated the OPA Board, developer and City had worked on the plan. The developer
had never seen the proposal until the previous evening. It was part of the story, and the
reason the City Attorney came to the conclusion in processing the plan. Over the last two
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 9 of 35
years there had been OPA hit pieces against his client, against Ridgeline supporters and
he felt it was not reflective of getting together or appropriate. There was an instance after
the letter from the City Attorney had been sent, an editorial appeared that had no mention
about that letter, but continuing to attack the project. Most recently what he found very
disappointing was the Facebook page that attacked the project and depicted his client as
Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and it was not appropriate. He believed they needed to stick
to the facts and he felt the quote from the 2008 City Attorney's letter was right on; the
letter read: "Ultimately the City's decision would be based on the merits of the project
and that would be the focus of everyone going forward".
Mr. Ryan stated there had been a lot of discussion that attacked the developer, as if his
client was some mysterious operator from Texas. The developer lived next to the project,
he knew and loved Orange, his children attended school in Orange, he attended a local
place of worship and sung in the choir and he believed the City had a very unique
opportunity to do something good for the community that strengthened the equestrian
lifestyle. They proposed 1 acre lots that were allowed by the General Plan and had been
endorsed and supported for many years. The developer had the support of the City's
EIIZ, the DRC, the Parks and Recreation Commission, Staff had recommended approval
and they trusted that the Planning Commission would come to the same conclusion.
Chair Whitaker stated prior to opening up the discussion for questions by the
Commissioners he wanted to confirm that Commissioner Cunningham had reviewed the
minutes and the video tape from the previous meeting?
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had.
Chair Whitaker stated he would allow all the Commissioners a turn to ask questions,
going back and forth to allow everyone to speak.
Commissioner Steiner stated his question concerned the Development Agreement. The
language in the agreement referred repeatedly to a 7.6 acre parcel donation. He asked if
Mr. Ryan agreed that the inclusion of language referencing a 7.6 acre parcel donation in
the Development Agreement would be misleading as it implied that the donation would
in fact take place.
Mr. Ryan stated his associates worked very hard to insure the chart provided had been
accurately reflected in the Development Agreement. If the Planning Commission wanted
the language further clarified they would do that. At some point in time the City
Attorney had asked them to stop, the intent was there and it was their commitment. If
further clarification was needed, they would provide that.
Commissioner Steiner stated provided the clarification would come in the form of further
emphasis that it was utterly contingent.
Mr. Ryan stated it was contingent on approvals. Their common sense was that if the
project was not approved, why would they give up residential land.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 10 of 35
Commissioner Steiner stated the limitation referred to more than just the approvals.
Mr. Ryan stated the 3.9 acres went with Ridgeline, no matter what. The 3.9 acres would
be donated as it was a commitment of the project.
Commissioner Steiner stated it was not accurate to state that all they would be asking for
was that the donation would only occur if the project would move forward. The donation
of the second parcel only would take place if the project moved forward. The language
in the Development Agreement indicated a lawsuit being filed.
Mr. Ryan stated if a lawsuit, initiative or referendum was filed, then there was an option
and they could donate the 7.6 acres or subdivide it and the 3.9 acres would be donated.
The bifurcation would be due to costs involved.
Commissioner Steiner stated he understood, but it was not accurate to state the 7.6 acres
would be donated unless the project was not approved. What it actually stated was that
the whole of the 7.6 acres would only be donated if no lawsuit was filed, even if
Ridgeline prevailed in the lawsuit.
Mr. Ryan stated that was correct.
Commissioner Steiner stated he wanted to ensure he was clear on the information. There
was a reference in the Development Agreement, specifically section 3.4.1, to the repeated
description of the donation. Donation might imply something that was not contingent, a
donation might be described as something that occurred irrespectively of the occurrence
or non-occurrence of a subsequent event, but the use of the term consideration he found
interesting. Consideration generally was a word of some significance in legal
interpretation; it referred to the additional consideration of an offer to donate the site to a
non-profit organization and there was a statement that the consideration was contingent
on the Ridgeline and Rio Santiago projects being approved by the City. Therefore, one
of the important elements was that a 7.6 acre parcel was included in the Development
Agreement, and he had reviewed other Development Agreements and those had no
association or link with another development project. The 7.6 acre donation would occur
only if another project, a project that they had not heard about yet, was also approved.
Mr. Ryan stated he felt that it went under the no good deed goes unpunished category.
They also had many people ask what if nothing else was approved.
Commissioner Steiner stated it would have seemed less duplicitous if it had not referred
to the "I gotcha" provision.
Mr. Ryan stated they had others ask what if the other project was not approved, and
through much discussion he believed that if the Planning Commission had a
recommendation for clarification or another direction for the language, he was open to
including that, as long as the intent of the donation to the community and to have the
equestrian center remain in perpetuity for future generations to remain an equestrian
Planning Commission Meeting
center.
June 7, 2010
Page 11 of 35
Commissioner Steiner stated a cursory reading of the Development Agreement might
lead the reader to think that there would be a 7.6 donation included. There was stealth
language included that he felt was regrettable, to put it mildly, and it was the notion of up
to 7.6 acres, of an offer to donate, and he wanted to hear from the other Commissioners,
but he felt it was treading in dangerous waters.
Mr. Ryan stated the 3.9 acres went with Ridgeline and the 7.6 acres would be the total for
both projects; but if the other project was denied, that was the reason it was spelled out in
the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Steiner asked how could a community member walk away from the
review of the materials with a notion 7.6 acres as the intent of the donation, when it
hinged on anon-occurrence.
Mr. Ryan stated it was the desire of the applicant and, again, it was not a requirement of
the project.
Commissioner Steiner asked what was not a requirement?
Mr. Ryan stated the donation of the gift; it was not a mitigation measure or a Condition of
Approval.
Commissioner Steiner stated the language in the Development Agreement went beyond
just simple altruism.
Mr. Ryan stated it was a pretty altruistic project, it was zoned for residential, and if the
City Council decided not to move forward, the area would be developed as residential
and it was the altruistic nature of his client to want to donate it to the community for the
equestrian community.
Commissioner Steiner stated he called it altruistic, but generally the altruistic act was not
crowed about, and he had some concern with that.
Commissioner Imboden stated his questions were in the same area and his concerns were
that the donation took place when building permits were pulled and he asked if the
applicant would be willing to change the donation to occur at the time of re-zone? The
reason for that was he had not understood the timing that had been set and wanted
clarification.
Mr. Ryan stated they had worked very hard with the coalition group before it ever
evolved into a Development Agreement to ensure that it was fair. It seemed a fair thing
to do; before anything was built a donation would occur. The people that they worked
with in the coalition that signed the MOU, that ultimately was embraced into the
Development Agreement, was intended to have fairness in the timing of their donation
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 12 of 35
and protected them against lawsuits, initiative and referendums.
Commissioner Imboden asked, in referring to lawsuits, was he also including the City of
Orange?
Mr. Ryan stated yes.
Commissioner Merino stated he is a simple guy, he is not an attorney, he is an architect.
If he took Mr. Ryan at his word and reviewed the diagram, the first block indicated that
the arena site donation would be made to anon-profit if Ridgeline and Rio Santiago were
approved. He asked what if Rio Santiago, which was not before them, was not approved?
Mr. Ryan stated the 3.9 acres would be donated to anon-profit prior to building permits
being pulled, or all of the 7.6 acres could be donated.
Commissioner Merino stated that would only happen at the time that permits would be
pulled, assuming Rio Santiago was out of the picture.
Mr. Ryan stated that was correct.
Commissioner Merino asked if he felt that bifurcated the two projects.
Mr. Ryan stated including the donation in the Development Agreement was a way to
memorialize what had been communicated.
Commissioner Merino stated that was not the question he asked.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had the same concerns and they had been asking
him different ways. The Development Agreement, even with the flow chart, was not
entirely clear. It was difficult to avoid that the two projects were linked. He could think
of different ways to clean up the language to make it more clear for all concerned,
whether for those opposed or in favor of the project. How the donations were made if
just Ridgeline were approved could be clarified; it could be the 3.9 acres or the whole
enchilada, and down the line with a different scenario and factors if Rio Santiago was
approved. As it was written, even when reviewing the flow chart presented, it was
difficult to avoid the impression that the two projects were linked. He was hearing from
his fellow Commissioners the desire for more simplistic language in the development
agreement. He heard what it was supposed to say and he had read it with what it was
supposed to state, but he could understand how others could interpret it differently or be
unsure of the intent.
Mr. Ryan stated he had heard from 4 of the Commissioners on the issue and he wanted to
re-emphasize that as part of the Commission's motion, if the Chair believed the language
in the Development Agreement needed to be clearer or simpler, he would be in favor of
that decision.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 13 of 35
Commissioner Cunningham stated there was an issue regarding the trail fencing and as he
recalled the applicant was proposing wood only and Staff was recommending chain link
fencing along Handy Creek and he asked for an explanation?
Mr. Ryan stated the chain link fence had existed for a long time and it was primarily to
keep people from playing for free on the golf course. He believed, through their analysis,
the need for a chain link fence went away as part of the development proposal. The set
back from the creek and the vinyl fencing that was proposed had met the design needs of
an equestrian lifestyle. In fact, there had been testimony regarding flood issues and it had
been determined that it would assist in the hydrology on the site and something that was
no longer needed.
Commissioner Cunningham stated Staff's concern was to keep children out of the creek
area of the development.
Mr. Ryan stated it was their concern, however, there was no condition occurring
anywhere else along Handy Creek and he referred to a diagram of the site. The split rail
fencing and trail system met the needs of the site and a chain link fence in the area would
be an aesthetic detriment and from a safety perspective, the design of the project was
safe.
Chair Whitaker stated getting back to the Development Agreement, they had heard that
the agreement needed to be simplified and he agreed with that. He asked if the
Development Agreement could be just with respect to the arena and the Ridgeline
project. The idea behind a Development Agreement was a 15 year term on entitlements,
a statutory exemption on extended entitlements. There was a quid pro quo for obtaining
that. If the applicant was asking for 15 years instead of the normal one or 2 years for
entitlements and the arena would be donated upon the re-zone and the applicable appeal
periods, to him it would be a lot simpler. He asked why that could not be done.
Mr. Ryan stated his position had been that what they had been hearing from the
community was how to memorialize the other gift that was not a part of the benefits of
the development and they wanted to commit to that and having both components in the
document was an assurance of exactly what his client wanted to do; to donated the entire
7.6 acres. If it was taken out and only the 3.9 was left, it would not be a promise that
when the item moved forward, the other piece of property that was not a requirement of
the Conditions of Approval, and was not a mitigation measure, was something that the
applicant wanted to do for the community and it would be something that they would be
offering on just their word; to trust that when they moved forward with Rio Santiago that
the other piece of property would be part of the project. It was their way of under the no
good deed goes unpunished, to commit to the objective and to place it in writing. They
received great support from their supporters. The Commissioners had indicated that the
language was confusing and unfortunately legal language was confusing and it was to
their detriment with people who attempted to use it as part of their attack of the project.
It was the applicant's way of memorializing the donation.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 14 of 35
Chair Whitaker stated there was a Mello Roos zone and usually in Development
Agreements those were rarely approved in the City of Orange, but approved only when
there were community benefits that could not be paid for. There were only 39 homes and
he was having a hard time figuring out what the community benefit was for those homes,
going from a 1 % tax rate to a 3+% tax rate.
Mr. Ryan stated the project had not hinged on that component, it was another piece that if
the resources were not available on the donation of the trails, there was a commitment to
offer them to the City first, the County second and anon-profit third and if all of those
had not wanted them the HOA would. The community facilities piece was not a lynch
pin in the project it was included only if no one wanted to participate. There was an
assurance that the project could go forward and he would leave that to the Commission's
purview to determine its inclusion. Dennis O'Neil included it because it was another
vehicle to ensure that the plan could be implemented over time.
Chair Whitaker stated on the ride-in arena, and it was difficult to walk around the
community without getting button holed on the issue, he had heard a lot of mixed and
negative messages and he had heard that other similar arenas had not been used by the
public; the applicant was asking for a waiver of park fees and it would at least seem to
him that instead of having a fee waiver if there was a park along Handy Creek where
residents could walk up or ride to it, the City would benefit. Currently $300,000 to
$400,000 would not buy much park land and he wondered if the applicant had thought
about placing a passive park in that area, something that could be used for the entire
community not just equestrians?
Mr. Ryan stated over the last five years they looked at several options such as a tennis
facility, and they had spoke about a park and what they had heard from the community
was to honor the OPA plan and something that would not perpetuate the equestrian
lifestyle but that celebrated it; the design of the project with 34 barns that connected to
the trails were part of that. The rural nature of Handy Creek was all part of that with the
different tiered trails, the feeder trails and a fairly benign arena would emphasize it. If a
lot was purchased in the area, residents would know that it was an equestrian area and
lifestyle. They had also heard that community members had not wanted more traffic and
a quiet ride-in only arena that could only be accessed through trails was their answer to
that.
Commissioner Merino stated that Mr. Ryan had repeatedly stated the applicant, Mr.
Martin, came from a very altruistic place in the project and why would he not just donate
the arena?
Mr. Ryan stated Mr. Martin felt that he had given a lot already. It was a very unusual
application, in any city in Orange County if a developer presented 1 acre equestrian
estates they would be told to bring it on; almost every client he spoke with was
attempting to build smaller more affordable projects. They had not played that game and
he was not before them asking for '/z acre lots, they were being consistent with the
General Plan for 1 acre lots and given some of the actions that had occurred in the last
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 15 of 35
two years, for Mr. Martin to just donate the arena now, with lawsuits and referendums
and the things that people were telling him would occur, he would not advise him to do
that.
Chair Whitaker closed the Public Hearing and opened the item for any further questions
or comments. They could proceed with the larger Staff issues that began on page 16 of
the Staff Report.
Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Sheatz regarding issue No. 9, the Development
Agreement, and he wanted to hear on the other issues that Staff had, but with respect to
the concerns he had with the Development Agreement, what would be the affect of a
denial, the legal or procedural denial, of a Development Agreement only?
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated regarding that portion of the application, the
applicant or developer could appeal that to the City Council.
Commissioner Steiner stated would it be strategically sound to move forward just
denying the Development Agreement. Denying the City the donation of the 3.9 acres as
the denial of that agreement would nullify even that portion of the donation.
Mr. Sheatz stated he was correct. If they would move in that direction he would want the
Commission to be very clear in how the action would relate to the Development
Agreement and the grounds or reasons for that denial for a basis in the record when the
project moved to the City Council. If that portion would be appealed, the City Council
would have information on how the Planning Commission had come to that conclusion.
Commissioner Steiner stated the Commissioners could conceivably express, for the
record, their concerns for the Development Agreement but also manifest an opinion that
the flaws identified so seriously tainted the remainder of the issues being considered that
the Commission could conceivably move forward with a denial of the project in its
entirety.
Mr. Sheatz stated it would be a recommendation of denial on it and the City Council
would ultimately make the decision.
Commissioner Steiner stated it had been referred to in the past that the Planning
Commission existed to identify areas of concern and do the heavy lifting; if the
Commission were to do that, and he was not certain of any decision, but the
Commissioners could express that the flaw was in the Development Agreement and a
position could be articulated that would develop the notion that the flaws; 7 acres verse 3,
altruistic or strategic, or whether a lawsuit was filed, who would prevail and he was a
little nervous in coaxing concessions out of the applicant after five years of development.
He asked if there was a due process concern with the Commissioners suggesting that if
the applicant took the language of lawsuits being filed out of the language, would it be
o.k. and he asked if they should avoid that.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 16 of 35
Mr. Sheatz stated he would not recommend making changes for the dais, he suggested
that they identify their concerns and to send it back to have the language re-worked to
allow the City Council to identify that and if the City Council accepted those
recommendations, they could ask Staff to go back and work through those concerns and
what those concerns were.
Commissioner Steiner asked if he meant to send it up.
Mr. Sheatz stated it would be sent up anyway.
Commissioner Merino stated what they were doing on the proposal was developing
recommendations to the City Council and they were not making a final determination. If
the Commission recommended that the Development Agreement be re-worked
completely, to be sent back, that was not necessarily meaning that the entire project
would be sent back. It would mean that the City Council would have Staff working on it
before it was presented before them.
Mr. Sheatz stated that could be the recommendation to City Council and it would not
occur prior to moving to the City Council. It would be their recommendation to the City
Council that the Commission found that the component or entitlement needed to be re-
worked and those areas of concern would be identified.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he wanted to get Staff's feedback on some of the
issues that were raised by the public. On the loss of recreational open space, what was
the legal responsibility?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the applicant's obligation was through the Quimby Act requirement
and that was the .37 acres under the City's ordinance. Because it was a private facility, it
was not a public park; there was not a mitigation requirement for a public facility. The
only obligation would be for the housing that was being provided and to offset the park
needs.
Commissioner Cunningham stated the City Council's 1989 General Plan Action
superceded the 1973 Council's action; designating the site as open space and low density
residential and he asked what Staff's response would be?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff's opinion was that it was the original action and the project
remained under that 1973 action under the OPA plan.
Commissioner Cunningham stated in regards to the park credit, if the applicant had a
park or tot lot instead of the ride-in arena, would they get 100% park credit?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he would need to refer back to the municipal code and he believed the
manner in which it was structured that the code limited a credit of up to 1/3ra of the park
land that could be used for the credit and the developer would need to pay for the
remaining portion.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 17 of 35
Commissioner Cunningham asked what would the developer need to do to obtain 100%
credit?
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated to get the 100% credit
public facilities would need to be included, public park land facilities that were consistent
with standards in the Community Services Department and open to the public. There was
a provision in Chapter 16 of the code for subdivisions with private facilities. It was up to
1/3rd and the facilities could be a tot lot; if it was a private facility not open to the public
at large, they would receive 1/4th credit of the fees because it was a private facility. The
applicant would still need to pay the fees; the only way to get 100% would be if they put
in a public park as detailed in the subdivision code.
Commissioner Cunningham stated as part of the approval that the HOA keep all the trails
open in perpetuity and was there a precedent of other trails and HOAs?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would not need to be a trail but could be a different amenity that
would be offered to the public and subsequently taken away. He was aware of a project
that had a trail component and the HOA subsequently blocked off public access to the
trails. Along those lines Staff was reviewing the trail system and conditioning them to
request that they be public trails.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if that was an unusual condition.
Mr. Ortlieb stated the project was not a typical project for the City and the conditions fit
the project and he could not personally point to a precedent.
Chair Whitaker stated when a zone change was sought it was a discretion item for the
Planning Commission and in the past when zoning was changed, in such places as the
gravel pit or Serrano Heights, with extended entitlement in those discretionary measures,
what types of mitigation was done in excess of the Quimby rule.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain and had not been involved in those projects.
Chair Whitaker stated he had noticed the applicant's representative had gotten up to
speak in response to one of their questions; however, he had closed the public hearing
and he asked Mr. Sheatz what was the appropriate thing to do?
Mr. Sheatz stated, with the indulgence of the other Commissioners, they could hear his
comments and he understood that based on the reaction, he felt the comment would come
from the characterization of the facilities that were being offered up or being asked to
have been considered and those were the park facility and a comment about the facilities
not being open to the public. The facilities would be open to the public. They could gain
clarification from Marie Knight, Community Services Director.
Ms. Knight stated the facilities being proposed were not private facilities, the ride-in
arena would be open to the public. In reviewing the dedication of the amenities and the
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 18 of 35
question was raised as to why park credit would not be given, they looked at those
amenities as being very specific to an equestrian community and the success of that
community was in having trails and amenities to support an equestrian community.
When they looked at offering a credit for park fees, they looked at the impact on park
systems with the residents coming in and the question was asked what would the project
need to include? They looked at things that were considered neighborhood parks, such as
tot lots. The arena was described in the EIR as limited benches, there would not be
restrooms and it was not something that would be considered a destination park for the
community members and the proposed project had not included lush green areas or
recreational facilities and the residents would seek those types of uses in other City parks.
They took the in lieu fees to offset the burden on the rest of the park system due to the
additional residents. There was a comment made earlier that $300,000 would not buy a
lot of park land and it would not be utilized for that, it would be used to upgrade existing
parks. The ride-in arena was a facility that was open to the public.
Commissioner Steiner stated it appeared the applicant still had a desire to speak and he
understood the reaction. He asked if the applicant was denied an opportunity to respond
to a point made would that affect a due process reversal issue, if and when the item were
to find itself in a courtroom.
Mr. Sheatz stated no, it would not. The applicant had a chance during his rebuttal time
and the issue regarding re-opening the Public Hearing would be at the Commission's
discretion.
Commissioner Merino stated he would have a basic issue with the fairness of that
because at the last meeting it was something that he felt they could have provided to
community members and that was not done and he felt it would be inappropriate to allow
the applicant another bite of the apple as he had already had his rebuttal period.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if they had a question for the applicant would they
also need to re-open the Public Hearing.
Chair Whitaker stated yes.
Commissioner Merino stated if the applicant and Staff wanted to go off to the side and
have a discussion and come up with further information that Staff could present that
might be another way to handle it.
Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for discussion; he wanted input
on the issues that were brought forward so the record was clear on their opinion.
Commissioner Steiner stated his issue was the Development Agreement. He had an issue
with the facility issue that was raised and it was stated that it was not a lynch pin and if it
was not a lynch pin why had it been included. The problem he saw was that first of all
the Planning Commission's role was to identify concerns, problems and issues they might
have with a project. They had listened to all the Public Comment and he appreciated
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 19 of 35
their input and it mattered and assisted them in their decision making. Having 3 meetings
to consider the project was good to assist in digesting all the information.
First, when he stated good it may only appear that way to some of them, and he felt it was
a good project on balance. He appreciated the sensitivity expressed with the loss of open
space, he agreed, but also he appreciated the comments that the proposed use was
consistent with the General Plan and that was their role. City Council was paid the big
bucks to come up with policy decisions, but from a Land Use decision, he felt the
proposed project was consistent with the General Plan and the project was well designed
and they were never going to be able to have everyone on the same page on a project
such as Ridgeline. By and large he thought if the project were to go forward, it would be
acceptable to him.
Now the bad, or depending on who was listening, the good. The Development
Agreement was too significant a problem for him to parse the issue out and to state yes to
some and no to the others. He made the comments and observations in light that the
project was good, but the concerns he had with the Development Agreement were too
significant to allow the project to move forward in its current form. There was an
undeniable coalescence between the proposed project and one they had no knowledge of.
The Development Agreement was being hoisted upon them as an altruistic act, but it was
a lot more than altruistic. It was tactically wise to engage in a Development Agreement
and it was to the developers benefit to have the agreement. He would not want to put the
applicant's representative in front of a firing squad and ask him what he was willing to
give up; to ask him to give up something in order for the project to move forward was a
bad idea. He would be shocked to see the project go up in flames over a 3 '/2 acre parcel
and he felt that was the job of the City's elected representatives, which they were not, the
Planning Commissioners were appointed. They were appointed by the City Council to
review and make recommendations on planning and land use concerns. He had a concern
regarding the Development Agreement that he could not overcome through the parsing
out of the various agenda items; and to do so would be unwise. He had not wanted to
leave the City in a situation where the Development Agreement was denied and approve
a project and the City would be left with nothing. It was enough of a concern that he had
not wanted to move forward with the proposal in pieces. He wanted to emphasize his
support for private property rights and he knew the issue was not over this evening. He
was supportive of the project and he believed it was well designed and would fit in nicely
with the area, but to the extent that it was linked to an unknown development caused in
some concerns. The project might not be dramatically linked or clearly linked; but to
approve a Development Agreement as the one that had been brought before the Planning
Commission would be dreadful precedent. A Development Agreement should provide for
clear things, not what if's, not on a theorem.
Commissioner Imboden stated he appreciated the comments made by Commissioner
Steiner and he was 100% in agreement with where he was. He would not have a lot of
comments about the project itself, the project was quite good. They would lose the golf
course but that was not what was in front of them to make a determination. He had
reviewed the proposal for quite some time now and to review it from many different
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 20 of 35
perspectives, it was the donation component of the Development Agreement that he
could not be 100% comfortable with; he could not gain 100% clarity through the wording
and the potential scenarios that laid before them. The potential of could happen, the may
nots and there were too many contingencies to allow him to become comfortable with it.
He had brought up the question of lawsuits and the City of Orange; his concern was that
they were all stakeholders in the proposed project as they were residents of Orange; they
would be making a decision on all of their behalf. To enter into agreements that he was
not comfortable with, and it was not just one person, was a decision he would be making
for the entire City of Orange. His hang up was with the Development Agreement. The
other aspects of the project pleased him and it was a project a person would expect in
OPA on that property.
Commissioner Merino stated he had been wrestling with the proposal since he had
received the initial preliminary EIR and he had written down some of his concerns. Both
the community and the applicant had legitimate claims and positions, some were valid
and some not valid. The valid side; the property owner had the unalienable right to
provide an application to the City and develop his property as he saw fit, and to pursue
the greatest profit in doing so. He had not felt that anyone in the community could argue
that fact. The community had the legitimate right to demand that its environment was of
the highest standards and its Government provided for the common good; including the
development of amenities that supported the highest quality of life. Not so valid and
reasonable was that the property owner had the duty and obligation to understand the
responsibilities that came with a piece of property in a community and should never
assume that it would be for his or her benefit only. The applicant knowingly purchased a
piece of property with an ambiguous Land Use designation in an activist community.
The community had the duty to ensure that its privately held resources, the golf course,
such as open space were cared for and not to look at Government to remediate its failure
to do so by the imposition of unreasonable standards. For example, the loss of the
existing open space would not have been an issue had the community successfully
supported its own resource and should not now look to the taxpayers to recreate it. With
the aforementioned being stated, however, it was the role of the Planning Commission to
make the best recommendation to the City Council that would serve the community's
needs while accommodating the rights of the applicant.
Commissioner Merino stated he would take each item and begin with the zone change.
On the General Plan Zone Change and the OPA Specific Plan that was reviewed in 1973,
but with modifications that were never fully vetted through, the appropriate process that
would have aligned them with the General Plan and the City Council Resolution 39-15,
thereby creating the ambiguity that they had. The City Attorney provided the
Commission with a memo addressing that fact. There was considerable doubt in his
mind that whether the community fully understood the significance of what it considered
a specific plan was not the case at all. Whether it occurred due to a lack of follow
through or other error, it was the case today and in his mind left the Planning
Commission with only one legitimate option and that was to fall back to the City's
General Plan designation in conjunction with the Council's resolution 39-15 of other
open space and low density 1 acre. That designation as validated by actions of prior City
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 21 of 35
Councils, Planning Commissions and OPA itself would allow for an overlay type
designation that would allow for both residential and open space. He saw no point in
removing either designation and, in fact, there was no reason to change the initial intent
and to cause no harm and allow both to coexist. His point was that there could be
overlays and if the developer chose to sell back to the community, the community could
purchase the property and do what they wanted with it, he would move that the Staffls
proposal to the City Council with the proviso that the property retain both the single
family residential R1-40 as well as an open space RO overlay be adopted and
recommended to the City Council.
Commissioner Merino stated as for the Major Site Plan he agreed with his fellow
Commissioners and took no exception and that was fine and he would move that they
move approval of that component as recommended by Staff. The DRC application, he
took no exception and felt the project was designed very well, however, he would make it
clear that any recommendation made by the Planning Commission would be only
pertinent for the application proposed currently before them and that any change in
ownership that would change the development in that regard shall be expected to be
resubmitted to the City for another review. If the developer flipped the project, and
changes to the design of the project where made, the project would return to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Merino stated as far as the Development Agreement, he had queried Staff
as to the source of the agreement and was told that the applicant had proposed the
agreement as part of his application through the entitlement process. The City had not
driven the terms of the agreement; it was also the applicant within his rights who chose to
bifurcate the two projects, one that was before them and a future project, Sully Miller,
which was not before them. With that perspective and as they were being asked to
approve only the Ridgeline project, he felt that the Development Agreement should not
link the two independent projects together. Either the projects were bifurcated or they
were not. Furthermore the terms and entitlements cited in the agreement appeared to
allow the applicant to have his own conditional approval and that certain terms of the
agreement on a quid pro quo basis and he felt it was not appropriate or even legal for a
Government advisory body to recommend an approval on an agreement that placed
conditions upon itself or other parties. There would be consequences if a party would
bring legal action upon another; he had not believed it was appropriate to validate a
Development Agreement that was contingent on someone else's action. Both the
applicant and community should expect that any conditions necessitated by the project
itself would be for the benefit of the taxpayer at large, and he felt the agreement was not
based on Staff input. Unless Staff provided other reasons why the Development
Agreement was necessary for the approval of the proposal, he would tentatively move
that they recommend to the City Council that the Development Agreement be removed
from the proposal and that the applicant be encouraged to pursue it outside of the
Governmental process.
Finally the Tentative Tract Map, he took no exception on that and would move forward
on it.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 22 of 35
Commissioner Cunningham stated he wanted to thank his fellow Commissioners for
graciously continuing the item to accommodate his absence. He had heard a great deal of
testimony and there was a great deal of emotion and history linked to the property in
question. He understood the feelings as he grew up in OPA. He had lived there for most
of his life; he spent a lot of time riding his bike to Ridgeline with his brothers, he took
tennis lessons there and his children learned to swim there, his brother worked there and
his dad golfed at the site and he had a lot of connections to the site. At the end of the day,
they were present to consider what the applicant wanted to do with the property and not
to consider memories. He had no issues with the project itself and it would perfectly fit
in with the nature of the community and based on the 1973 action, one acre developments
were what was preferred for OPA and that was what the applicant had brought forward.
He had not seen anything wrong with it. He understood the concerns with the
Development Agreement and he had not fully shared them and the wording was inartful
or at least not easy to understand which was the case many times with legal documents.
For non-lawyers, they were not easily understood and that was why there were lawyers to
be hired to interpret such documents; and the majority of the lawyers present had come to
the conclusion that the agreement had, in fact, conveyed the arena in the manner outlined
in the flow chart. He understood that Rio was mentioned and there was the impression of
linkage, and after a great deal of thought at the end of the day, the 3.9 acres of the arena
would go to the community with the Ridgeline approval and that would stand, unless the
project was overturned. There could be more and he had not agreed that it was a purely
altruistic move, but altruism had not necessarily had to be divorced from strategic
thinking or acting in ones self interest. He had not had the same qualm about moving
forward with the project and the Development Agreement and he was being prepared to
move forward with both.
Chair Whitaker stated he agreed with the comments of his fellow Commissioners. He
wanted to outline his position and he was not certain they could come to a consensus or
not. He believed that the City Council and Planning Commission resolutions of 1973
were the effective legislative law that was in place and there was a General Plan that
designated the site as recreational open space or low density 1 acre residential and the
project was consistent with the General Plan.
On zoning, currently the zoning had been changed in 1985 from residential to open space,
and they had an applicant that was wanting to change the designation back to residential
which was consistent with the General Plan, but once again the zoning changes were
discretionary items. The Planning Commission had the discretion, at their level, to
approve or not approve a zone change. He was comfortable with the zone change based
on certain mitigation measures and to him the mitigation measures were the trails, the
ride-in arena or potential park along Handy Creek and in exchange for 15 years on the
entitlements, he felt there was a quid pro quo of the arena, not of the 7 acres but of the 3.9
acres. He would be comfortable to move forward with the proposed project if the City
Staff would be instructed to undertake a different Development Agreement that was only
with respect to Ridgeline and had not included the Community Facilities District, and
upon all of the appeal and initiative periods passing that the arena land would be donated
and there was no dealing with the other property, Rio Santiago or any of that. It would be
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 23 of 35
a Development Agreement that would provide the developer 15 years for their
entitlements in exchange for the provision to the community the arena. That would be
mitigation for the zone change. He had not felt that the argument for an acre to acre swap
was valid, he felt that would be a taking, but there needed to be some mitigation for
allowing the 15 years and for having a recreational opportunity not be there. He was
perfectly fine moving forward if it was specific that the arena came with the project,
when the project was approved and that was how he felt. A lot of Commissioner
Merino's motions he felt very comfortable with. He also felt that Staff could be directed
to re-draft the Development Agreement and he also understood the other Commissioner's
position in that they could not move forward with the current Development Agreement.
Commissioner Steiner stated Chair Whitaker's tentative motion with regard to the
Development Agreement was that Staff return and redraft it; and with respect to the
donation he asked for clarification on his recommendation?
Chair Whitaker stated it would be the 3.9 acre arena being donated after passage of the
appeal and initiative filing periods and not after building permits, it would be donated and
then the zone would be put into place.
Commissioner Steiner stated he felt that the Development Agreement would have been
better if it had not screwed around with a reference to a project that was not before them
and had started the ball rolling that there was some grand conspiracy at work. He
understood why the community thought that. It was just bad public policy. If a motion
included language that provided for the redrafting of the Development Agreement to
eliminate all references to a prof ect that was not before them, he felt it was in the purview
of the City Council to determine whether or not the change would be within the best
policy and procedure.
Commissioner Imboden stated that to go any further would be getting into policy and he
would prefer not to take part in and agreed with Commissioner Steiner.
Commissioner Steiner stated he thought Chair Whitaker was onto something and that was
the one bone of contention for some of them was that somehow Ridgeline was linked to
another piece of property that would most likely be controversial and he thought that
people had identified that as being unfair. If Chair Whitaker's proposal would be that the
Development Agreement be redrafted to remove any such reference to that and it could
move forward in light of the redrafting in whatever form it would take, the City Council
could make the determination if it was appropriate.
Chair Whitaker stated the recommendation to City Council would be for a redraft.
Commissioner Merino stated there were two issues; in terms of the Development
Agreement to get into the specifics of what was or was not acceptable was beyond the
purview of the Planning Commission and there were issues that had to be dealt with, with
the applicant and there were issues to be dealt with on a policy level and they agreed that
they would not want to get involved in policy issues. He would not want to give a signal
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 24 of 35
to anyone that he knew what the right answer for the Development Agreement was. He
knew that it had not worked for him and would not work for the community and therefore
the Development Agreement needed to go back.
In terms of the Land Use designation, he wanted to be clear and he understood that the
Chair had not agreed with allowing an overlay of open space for the site.
Chair Whitaker stated that was more of a policy issue and the applicant was requesting a
zone change and currently the zoning was open space and he thought overlays were fine
and overlays had been done with the General Plan Update. The applicant was asking for
a zone change and the General Plan had two designations and the zone had one and the
applicant was asking for a change. It was in the discretion of the Planning Commission
to issue a zone change and he was comfortable with that if the Development Agreement
was only for the project before them and the donation specifics were clear.
Commissioner Merino stated he had not seen the connection; the reason he had brought it
up was that both designations coexisted depending on what snap shot in time they were
looking at, and in the interest of doing no harm, he could not see why the applicant would
object to having an overlay and it could make the project more sellable and it would be a
win win for the community and for the applicant and eliminate the controversy of the site.
Chair Whitaker stated there were two levels, the General Plan and Zoning. The General
Plan clearly allowed two designations and the zone was the zoning code that was below
the General Plan and was only zoned one thing, it was only open space and the applicant
was seeking to change that and his view was in support of that change if the remainder of
the project was clear.
Mr. Sheatz stated he urged the Commissioners to stick to the script, there was an
application before them and that was what the applicant was looking for and it was his
project that he had been working on for five years and it was the submittal. He was
thinking how he could stair step them through to gain a recommendation that the City
Council would be able to handle, as some of them felt the Development Agreement was
inextricably linked to another project, which would link it back to zoning and he was
attempting to find a way that they could help it along to make a recommendation that was
contingent on a redraft of the Development Agreement, in order to get it sheparded up to
City Council for those policy changes.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he agreed that they should not move forward on one
and it had not made sense to approve the proposal and not approve the mitigation of the
arena. He asked if they approved everything except the Development Agreement would
there be no arena donated to the community?
Mr. Sheatz stated that was correct, that would be the recommendation and the
Development Agreement had the offer of the arena, so they would effectively state that it
was not what they would approve.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 25 of 35
Commissioner Cunningham stated he had not believed that redrafting the Development
Agreement would only go so far, even if they could do that the room would still be full of
people wearing the same signs and had not gone to the crux of the issue that was on the
mind of a lot of residents. It was a question of whether they should re-zone the site and
whether there should be homes there. To wave a magic wand over the Development
Agreement and solve it was ill founded and he was of the same mind of Chair Whitaker
to allow City Council to make the Development Agreement cleaner in terms of
communicating what they wanted it to do. At the same time he would not want to punt it
up to City Council. He would not want an applicant to come to them with a proposal and
to have them walk away with something completely different.
Commissioner Merino stated they would not be voting on anything, they would be
making a recommendation and to reach a consensus. There were specific issues brought
and it had been agreed that each issue would be discussed and taken on their own merits.
He would make a motion in terms of the zone change that they accept Staff's
recommendation with the exception, he then asked Mr. Sheatz if the applicant was
willing to remand his application and they had done that from the dais, gained an
acknowledgement from the applicant, that he would not be adverse to an overlay. Would
there be any reason that they could not have a zone with an overlay at that level and he
asked if that would be acceptable?
Mr. Sheatz stated one of the issues would be that they would need to review the EIR and
he was not certain that could be done from the dais as it was something that they were
also being asked to take action on.
Commissioner Merino stated they had a piece of property that had both designations and
he was not certain what changes would be at issue. He wanted to provide the opportunity
for both the community and the applicant; it would be awin-win; if that was not available
to them through zoning, that was a different story.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated they needed to keep their eye on the
ball with a very specific project description that was included in the environmental report
and it was something very specific that had been advertised and a specific project that
people had come to speak on. Nowhere in the proposal was there any discussion on an
overlay for zoning or for a General Plan designation. During the conversation, it
appeared that the two were getting muddled together, between the General Plan
Amendment and the Zone Change. They were two very distinct things and the project
that was before them and what had been analyzed. They had dealt with overlays during
the General Plan Update, but the proposed project was different, it was project specific
and had very specific requested designations.
Commissioner Merino stated in Ms. Aranda Roseberry's personal memo dated June 4,
2010 it was noted that there were 4 different Land Use designations for the property, one
of them being open space and low density. He asked why it would be inappropriate to
allow that Land Use designation to continue?
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 26 of 35
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were not 4 designations for the site, but rather 4
different sources that they used to determine the actual designation for the site. They
used the OPA plan which had a different designation and the only designation that held
water was the 1973 determination, open space and low density residential.
Commissioner Merino stated yes it was resolution 39-15, and he asked why would they
not validate an earlier City Council's decision to keep the other open space and low
density designation?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated regardless of what determination came forward in a General
Plan Amendment for the property, they would update all the applicable maps as it had not
been done nearly 30 years ago, but it was not what was before them.
Commissioner Merino stated again the question he had, was there any reason why the
Planning Commission could not make a recommendation to the City Council to change
the Land Use designation, with no objection from the applicant, to open space low
density?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was not what was before them.
Commissioner Merino stated if the applicant agreed it would be o.k.
Mr. Sheatz stated he would have an issue with that as they had not analyzed that in the
environmental document.
Commissioner Merino stated the environmental document dealt with an existing piece of
property that carried both the designations based on resolution 39-15.
Mr. Sheatz stated the project in front of them was the project that had been analyzed in
the environmental and if they switched it up, they ran a risk. The overlay had not been
analyzed.
Commissioner Merino asked what the risk was.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated in 1973 an action was
taken and there was a designation under the OPA plan which was not reflected in their
copies, but it existed. The fact was that it was open space and 1 acre lots. Just because it
had not been changed on the maps had not meant it had not existed. There was to be a
follow up action where Staff was to bring about certain changes to implement that into
the General Plan that never occurred. What Commissioner Merino was stating was let us
fix it 37 years later with an overlay Land Use designation of recreational space and one
acre lots.. It had not been done years ago, it was not advertised for the current Public
Hearing and it would require Staff to complete the work that had not been completed 37
years ago and that was what Ms. Aranda Roseberry and Mr. Sheatz were conveying.
They would need to put the brakes on things, re-work the environmental documents, re-
advertise the hearing and bring it back in order to do that under the General Plan, less so
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 27 of 35
now, but there were overlays. It would not be impossible to do that, to have recreational
and one acre, it was just not a part of the project before them and something that had not
been done 37 years ago. In order to follow through that thread, it would require going
through the process.
Chair Whitaker stated Commissioner Merino had made a motion and he asked if there
was a second to his motion. There was none.
Chair Whitaker stated he had a question for Staff in reference to the General Plan
Amendment being sought as part of the application. In Issue No. 1, the General Plan
Amendment, was the request to go to low density or was it to include for map updates
only to correspond to the 1973 action?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the General Plan Amendment requested by the applicant was to change
the site to become single family residential one acre minimum, to have the General Plan
be only one designation.
(Italic text is verbatim)
Chair Whitaker stated he was prepared to make a motion and everyone could hear him
all the way through and then they could pick him apart after that. It would be a
resolution Planning Commission recommending to the City Council certified the
adequacy of the final Environmental Impact Report 1788-07, adopt the finding of fact,
adopt a statement of overriding considerations and deny the General Plan Amendment
2007-001 because the General Plan already has both designations in it. Zone change,
approve zone change 1243-07, Tentative Tract Map 0019-07, Design Review Committee
No. 4207-7, Major Site Plan 04, 0496-07 to allow for the construction of 39 residential
units on minimum 1 acre lots public ride-in only equestrian arena approximately 1 mile
of public trails and .7 miles of internal trails located at 1051 North Meads Avenue
contingent upon the redrafting of the Development Agreement No. 5600, so that the 3.9
acre ride-in arena is donated in a manner that is clear and only related to Ridgeline in
the City Council's discretion.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there was any of the language with respect to the timing of
the donation?
Chair Whitaker stated his suggested timing would be, the timing I would like, that would
be in the City Council's discretion, would be upon all appellate periods and periods for
filing an initiative to have passed without any of those occurring.
Commissioner Cunningham asked for clarification on why he wanted to approve to deny?
Chair Whitaker stated as Mr. Ortlieb had explained it, the General Plan Amendment was
being sought to change the General Plan to a single designation of R1 residential and
with a 15 year Development Agreement they would not know what the project would be
and he felt the City Council in 1973 was wise to allow either designation. He had been
getting button holed by people who wanted the whole project denied so they could have a
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 28 of 35
ball field. They had not known what would occur there and the City Council in 1973
made a decision and the General Plan was what it was and allowed for the zone change.
Commissioner Merino stated it was highly complicated and he asked if he was
recommending a denial of the Land Use change that the applicant had requested and
would that not essentially deny the project, or was he stating with that denial it would fall
back on the open space and one acre residential?
Chair Whitaker stated the General Plan currently stood with two designations, the
amendment request was to eliminate the open space designation and only have a
residential designation, his recommendation to the City Council would be to leave well
enough alone with respect to the General Plan. The project could be done with a zone
change and leaving the General Plan as it stood, and it gave them some flexibility. They
would not need to approve an amendment to the General Plan to approve the remainder
of the application.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated to further complicate the issue, the General Plan
Amendment not only was for the designation change but also for some language changes
and from the many memos that were put before them, the OPA plan was part of the Land
Use Element in the General Plan and the applicant was requesting language changes
within the OPA plan and therefore it was through a General Plan Amendment. They
could review that on page 16 of the Staff Report under issue No. 1. The first one dealt
with the designation called out in the OPA plan, the second would add text providing for
vinyl fencing in addition to wood fencing and provide text revisions to reflect the
Ridgeline Equestrian Estate dwelling unit densities in the plan, they had included charts
and such that were updated. Specific to the plan itself were changes to the density tables
and the vinyl fencing.
Chair Whitaker stated he had no issue with those changes to the General Plan, but he had
a problem with a change to one designation.
Commissioner Merino stated weren't they attempting to do what he wanted but just in
reverse, he believed they would be changing the application to make it palatable for the
denial just as they would have done with an overlay.
Chair Whitaker stated an overlay would change the zoning code.
Commissioner Merino stated they were denying it and just adjusting for that denial.
Commissioner Imboden stated he had not agreed. or disagreed with Commissioner
Merino and he had not understood the advantage of what he was attempting to do.
Commissioner Merino stated he was supportive of Chair Whitaker's recommendation if it
worked.
Commissioner Imboden asked if he was opposed to the motion made.
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 29 of 35
Commissioner Merino stated no, if they were not capable of changing things because
they would be messing with the application, could they move forward with the Chair's
recommendation and they were getting into some idiosyncrasies and he was in support of
Chair Whitaker's recommendation.
Commissioner Steiner stated both approaches would accommodate what they were
attempting to recommend, it was that one approach would be less subject to challenge by
virtue of it not referencing a term that should not be referenced.
Commissioner Merino stated if the Staff agreed.
Chair Whitaker stated he would change his motion to take out or deny one part of the
General Plan Amendment and would that be acceptable, and it was something that had
been publicly noticed, where as overlay zoning was not noticed and it was where his
opinion was coming from.
Mr. Knight stated it was not an easy answer; they were not messing with the application
by a denial, to deny one aspect of it, because the project before them could be denied.
They could get into issues in attempting to make changes to it. Commissioner Merino
was attempting to create a different Land Use with the overlay and in some respect it was
somewhat of the same thing, however, what Chair Whitaker would be doing was to
recommend that one aspect of the project be denied. There was a denial of the General
Plan from Staff's perspective would that create a domino effect. In other words, would
the proposed zoning be inconsistent with what would be the General Plan designation
that existed. In his estimation no, because the current Land Use designation was
currently open space and one acre estate lots and to change it to a single designation of
estate lots would be consistent with the General Plan- yes, because the General Plan
permitted two different types of Land Uses, under the OPA plan. On its face, no it would
not be inconsistent. Some of the things that came into play were that the Land Use was
not on the General Plan table of contents but on the OPA plan and sort of got rolled into
it by default and became a bit more messy. If the General Plan Amendment was denied,
his estimation was that the zoning would be o.k. to go through and was consistent with
the dual designation on the project. Once arriving at zoning, everything else had to be
consistent with the General Plan, all else would be consistent, the tentative tract map and
such would be consistent.
This was his second motion:
Chair Whitaker stated let me try to re phrase my motion based on the knowledge that has
been imparted.
Mr. Knight stated as Ms. Roseberry mentioned there are some changes to the text of the
General Plan.
Chair Whitaker stated I understand, I understand, ok, my revised attempt at a motion
would that a we, a resolution of the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 30 of 35
Council certify the adequacy of Final Environmental Impact Report 1788-07, adopt
Findings of Fact, adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve General
Plan Amendment 2007-001, with the exception of item number one which was on page 16
which is the, making only one residential, but we would recommend that the City Council
approve the other items to the General Plan Amendment, the other textural items, the
vinyl fencing, the density issue, and the consistency on language, then we would approve
Zone Change 1243-07, Tentative Tract Map 0019-07 also known as Tentative Tract Map
17167, Major Site Plan 0496-07, Design Review Committee 4207-07 to allow for the
construction of 39 residential units on a minimum 1 acre lots and ride-in only equestrian
arena approximately 1 mile of public trails, and .7 of internal trails located at 1051 N.
Meads Avenue contingent upon, Development Agreement 5600 being modified so that the
3.9 acre ride-in, the 3.9 acre arena is donated as soon as all appellate periods and
referendum filing periods have passed without any filing against the Ridgeline project,
within the City Council's discretion on how that language should be reworded. That is
my motion and maybe it dies, I don't know.
Commissioner Cunningham stated I'll second it.
Chair Whitaker stated it has been moved and seconded and now time for discussion.
Commissioner Merino stated he was supportive of the motion with the exception of the
last line and the whole issue of contingency and allowing the applicant the ability to not
donate if a lawsuit would be filed, basically validating a third party's action as party to
their approval. Could they just remove themselves and have it be a recommendation for a
re-work of the Development Agreement.
Chair Whitaker stated the intent was in making the approvals contingent upon the
Development Agreement being reworded was if the applicant would not donate the land
all the approvals would go away, there would be no zone change, no tract map approval,
nothing. It was o.k. with him and he would not care what happened out there in the City,
they would either attack it or they would not attack it, if the applicant chose to remove the
donation all the approvals would go away.
Commissioner Merino asked why should the tax payers be worried whether a third party
exercised their freedom of speech or choice to sue another party, and why should the City
be a party to that issue?
Chair Whitaker stated they would not be a party to it at all, simply put the applicant was
asking for approval of a project and he was stating it was fine as long as he donated, if the
donation could not occur because of other things happening then the approval went away
and the City would not be out any money. The approval would be contingent, period.
Commissioner Merino stated he felt the language of his motion was not clear.
Chair Whitaker asked if there was any further discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 2010
Page 31 of 35
Commissioner Steiner stated the distinction between the contingency proposed by the
Chair and the Development Agreement that was proposed initially was stark, it was a
completely different form of contingency, a contingency that was in the interest of the
City vs. penalizing of the City if an unknown issue occurred. If there was to be any type
of legal preceding the applicant would be left with nothing; if he chose not to donate and
the modifications as described addressed his concerns.
Commissioner Cunningham stated he concurred with Commissioner Steiner.
Commissioner Merino stated with Commissioner Steiner's confidence and he being a
judge elect that his legal acumen was sufficient for him to be confident in the action.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Merino, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 32 of 35
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2786-10 -THRILL IT
ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
A proposal to operate a 10,934 square foot family play center and birthday party facility
with four or more amusement devices.
LOCATION: 20 City Boulevard West, Suite 907A
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities)
because the proposal will be housed in an existing building within
an existing shopping center.
RECOMMENDATION ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-10 to allow a
family play center and birthday party facility with ten
amusement devices.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Whitaker opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Chair Whitaker asked, regarding Condition No. 3, which he knew was placed in the
Conditions due to the arcade standards, which stated that the CUP shall be limited to the
hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and considering
the location at The Block, his concern was, had Mr. Garcia spoken with the applicant
about those hours and would the Police Department want more restrictive hours? He felt
that the standard Condition was placed in the Staff Report and if the proposal was for a
family fun center he had a hard time justifying the hours of operation to 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Garcia stated the hours of operation proposed were Monday through Thursday 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Friday through Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The hours would
be more restrictive than the standard Conditions.
Chair Whitaker asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz if it would be acceptable to
place the applicant's hours of operation into Condition No. 13, instead of what currently
existed?
Mr. Sheatz stated yes, they could do that.
Chair Whitaker invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Eric Barnes, address on file, stated the proposal was for a children's entertainment center
and it was all described quite well by Mr. Garcia. He wanted to address the hours and
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 33 of 35
the Chair was absolutely correct in the 1:00 a.m. time. His customers were under 7th
grade age and should be sleeping by 8:00 p.m. He was currently in negotiations on the
lease with The Block and there was a concern regarding the hours. The Block wanted
him to stay open to 9:00 on weekdays and 11:00 on weekends. He was currently
negotiating his hours. If they made him remain open until 11:00 p.m., he was not certain
what he would do as it would not be cost effective for him to run his business with those
hours. The proposal was for a children's play area based on physical activities, trying to
keep kids active. There would be large climbing structures, indoor rock climbing, and a
high ropes course.
Chair Whitaker stated there appeared to be 10 arcade games.
Mr. Barnes stated it would be up to 10 games and those would be typically physical
games, such as a jump roping game.
Chair Whitaker asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Commission Merino stated if he was understanding the applicant's concern, if the City
conditioned the hours of operation that were of the most use to the applicant, would that
enhance the applicant's ability to have discussions with the landlord?
Mr. Barnes stated that question would be better directed at his Real Estate representative
as the hours had been previously agreed upon. The problem was that the person who
had agreed to those hours had moved onto a different job and now he was going back. If
he was open past 8:00 p.m. on a weekday, he would not know who his customers would
be. His business was not an attraction for teenagers.
Chair Whitaker stated that was his concern there would be roving bands of teenagers in
the facility to play arcade games at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Barnes stated at his facility there was a security area, parents wear wrist bands with
their children and unaccompanied children were not allowed. A 14 year old might enter
the facility; however, they would need to be brought in with a parent. The proposed
facility would be a giant Chuck E. Cheese without food.
Chair Whitaker brought the item back to the Commission for further discussion or a
motion.
Commissioner Merino stated he was ready to make a motion with the modifications, as
stated and they could amend the hours of operation to assist the applicant and he would
be supportive of that. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 14-
10, approving CUP No. 2786-10-Thrill It Entertainment Center, subject to the conditions
contained in the Staff Report.
Chair Whitaker stated the motion would be to approve CUP No. 2786-10, Thrill It
Family Entertainment Center, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 34 of 35
with a modification to Condition No. 13, for hours 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday, and on Friday through Sunday unti18:00 p.m.
Commissioner Steiner stated he was in agreement with everyone; he had not wanted to
see the City condition the hours of operation to 8:00 p.m. and for the property
management to want different hours to remain open until 11:00 p.m. He would not
want the applicant to find himself in a difficult position returning to the Planning
Commission. He suggested including a provision that a renegotiating of hours would be
permitted in the event it became an issue.
Chair Whitaker asked if that could be done.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz stated the applicant would be able to return if he
required an adjustment in the hours.
Commissioner Steiner asked if there would be any fees associated with that.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight stated there were fees, however,
he felt what Commissioner Steiner was suggesting was that the hours could be modified
administratively. Instead of having the applicant return to the Planning Commission, the
motion could include that any minor changes in hours of operation could be completed
through the Community Development Department.
Commissioner Merino stated there had to be a limit in hours to address the concerns of
Chair Whitaker.
Chair Whitaker stated his concern had been with the standard Conditions of midnight
and 1:00 a.m., he felt the applicant would not be asking for those hours.
Commissioner Steiner stated he would want to include language that would avoid the
applicant getting the shaft if the landlord rejected the City's approved hours of
operations. He felt the inclusion of language would accommodate that concern.
Chair Whitaker asked Commission Merino if he would be comfortable including the
additional language into his motion.
Commissioner Merino stated yes.
SECOND: Commissioner Steiner
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2010
Page 35 of 35
Chair Whitaker stated prior to the meeting's adjournment that he wanted to thank
everyone for their public participation, it was democracy in action and the Council
Members were watching the hearing. He wanted to acknowledge one of his colleagues
Mr. Scott Steiner. He had tendered his resignation effective on Wednesday, assuming
that he is elected a judge on Tuesday. He wanted to congratulate and thank him for being
a great Chairman to the Commission, a good friend and a very professional colleague and
he wanted to give him a public congratulations.
There was applause from the audience.
Commissioner Steiner stated he had not resigned with the hope that he would win, but
happily he had no opponent, and he highly recommended running without an opponent.
He stated it had been a privilege to serve the City and to serve with his fellow
Commissioners and he thanked them all.
(5) ADJOURNMENT:
Adjourn to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 7, 2010.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning
Commission Meeting on June 21, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner Imboden
AYES: Commissioners Cunningham, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 9:38 p.m.