From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

CCPAC member Jay Schneider, seated, talks with audience member Wally Boeck during the session.

Tie vote on recommendation for new developments

Full story published Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Brief published Thursday, December 1, 2005

The Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council sent a mixed message to county planners Wednesday night when a resolution to approve the first two subdivisions of a development plan for the remaining property in Murieta North ended in a tie vote.

The deadlock was greeted with applause by the largely partisan crowd, some of whom had threatened to walk out after accusing council members of having made up their minds beforehand to recommend the Residences of Murieta Hills and the Retreat projects. About 45 people attended the three-hour session at the Wilton Firehouse.

Three members of the council were absent.

Traffic emerged as a major concern in the contentious discussion and the motion to approve the projects included a request for "as strong as possible mitigation for Jackson Road and Stonehouse Road."

A traffic study showing the additional 351 homes would produce an 80-vehicle increase in traffic on Jackson Road during a 45-minute peak period in the morning drew an incredulous reaction from the crowd. The information is included in the environmental document for the projects, the developers said.

Over the first hour of the meeting, the Residences and the Retreats developers made low-key presentations using photos and maps to describe the projects. They addressed grading, soil conditions, affordable housing, tree loss and traffic issues.

After that, about a dozen speakers from the audience were given the floor.

The first speaker, resident Ron Hand, expressed concerns that were repeated by others who followed him – the need for compatibility with existing neighborhoods, preservation of open space for wildlife habitat, and on-site oak tree mitigation.

Hand questioned the traffic study for the projects, saying it's based on a "rural approach" that Caltrans found "inappropriate" and information that's not current.

He said the developers' reductions in density are "a good thing," but pointed out that the hotel originally proposed for one of the Retreat parcels would not be considered an appropriate land use today.

Many of the speakers had either made comments at the fruitless county-facilitated meetings on development held earlier this year or they participated in the meetings as members of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee, a group that opposes current development plans.

RMDCCC member Ted Hart told the CCPAC board there had been no concessions from the developers during the county talks. Developers, he said, "flat out everything … They slash, burn and put stuff on slabs and to hell with the land. … There was never any middle ground because there was not one inch of movement on the other side."

CCPAC member Jay Schneider, a longtime neighboring rancher, rankled some in the crowd when he contested some of the speakers' claims. He also suggested compromise as a course of action for dealing with the developers. That advice was offered by others also.

As she did at the county meetings, RMDCCC member Janis Eckard produced the land-use chart that appears in a 1973 environment impact report as proof that the community is entitled to 1,806 acres of open space in the 3,500-acre total.

Schneider termed the chart "the worst case of taking things out of context. … This misrepresents completely … the total open space." He added, "I don't appreciate your bringing this up when you know that it's been superseded and it's not correct."

"We have a different view of this. I'm going to go on to other things," Eckard responded evenly.

The open space acreage chart continued to be a rallying point for the RMDCCC despite a county planning department report last year on land use in Rancho Murieta. The report's conclusion was the acreage chart was not used in calculating the open space set forth in the 1973 master plan approved by the county Board of Supervisors.

That plan was replaced by the 1984 master plan, which has been the basis for most of the community's development. The 1984 plan is still in effect, although Murietan Wally Boeck said in his remarks at the CCPAC meeting that the plan doesn't exist and RMDCCC member Candy Chand quoted a county planner as saying it was "full of holes" and vague.

During Eckard's 15-minute presentation, she challenged the claim made in the developers' presentation that the Residences project follows the contours of the land. Referring to a topographical map, she pointed out 72 feet of cut and fill grading and remarked, "We're talking a seven-story building. … Those are the facts, and I have (the developers') topo map to prove it."

Murietan Janis Eckard said one of the proposed developments would require
a 72-foot cut in a hillside, equal to a seven-story building.

When Eckard suggested that developers make two projects out of the Residences and reduce the number of units in each to under 100 to avoid having on-site low-income housing, one CCPAC member commented that she apparently didn't want to see low-income housing in the neighborhood.

"Let's be real. Seriously, no one does," she responded.

Schneider asked, "You're suggesting the solution to that problem would be to circumvent the ordinance by dividing it into two projects?"

"I think that would be one means of doing it, yes," Eckard replied.

After several speakers questioned whether there is sufficient water to support development, Schneider said emphatically, "Water supply is not an issue, and every time someone gets up and says there's not enough water or that the lakes go down when it's that time of year -- that's planned, that's anticipated. It's annoying."

Julie Sams, who serves as a Rancho Murieta Association director, directed her remarks at the developers in the form of rapid-fire questions on various topics.

She asked which one "is going to be giving 8 to 10 million dollars to upgrade the (Community Services District) drinking water system? … CSD has spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on this."

Standing in a row along the wall, the developers all raised their hands. A surprised Sams said, "Everybody?"

They explained they would be providing the entire $12 million cost for the water treatment plant expansion, and they, not the CSD, had already paid $120,000 for the plans. The CSD's policy is that development costs are borne by developers.

Murietan Julie Sams challenged the developers with questions about water sources and funding.

Her next question was, "… are you going to draw off the river for your water or are you going to draw off of wells? Who knows?"

Almost as one, they replied, "the river," and Retreat developer Gerry N. Kamilos explained that the community has water rights associated with the land "so all the rights to service the entire 5,200 units that were originally planned are available."

Water is pumped from the Cosumnes River during the rainy season and stored in three reservoirs -- Calero, Chesbro and Clementia.

The board met some resistance when it attempted to move the meeting along.

RMDCCC member Candy Chand said she felt "really rushed" and needed more time to speak. After a few remarks, she singled out CCPAC Vice Chairman Jim Perham, asked his name and told him, "I've watched you while people stood up here, rolling your eyes, smirking. I feel like your mind was made up hours before. Maybe weeks before. It makes me very uncomfortable. … I hope I'm not right, so we'll see."

Perham was one of the four who voted to recommend the projects, saying, "I'm up here as a volunteer and I'm doing what I can to help my community. All I hear from … most of you people tonight is negativity and an unwillingness to compromise."

John Kershaw, a resident and former CCPAC member, was one of the last to speak before the meeting was closed to public comment and the board began its discussion and voted.

Describing himself as a "devil's advocate," Kershaw said he thought there were sufficient votes at the county level to pass the projects because they were "consistent with the general plan" and were proceeding through the process mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act.

As the crowd grumbled in disagreement, he continued, "I don't want us to stick our heads in the sand and miss out on getting some conditions."

Kershaw described the transportation issue as "the most important" because it affects the whole area. "You've got to put a condition if you do anything on this project that upfront improvements be made from Grantline … all the way down to Sunrise" on Highway 16, he told the group.

In addition to the transportation condition, he recommended a condition setting a maximum for grading cuts.

Cheryn Salazar, one of the final speakers, protested the closing of the comment period imposed by CCPAC chair Frederick Hegge after about 90 minutes of public comments. "For the time to be given for Jay (Schneider) to talk excessively and to have us being cut short of being able to express ourselves, I don't think that's fair. … It's obvious who's for this already," she said.

Shortly after her comments, some members of the audience stood up to leave before the vote amid loud complaints about the closing of the comment period. One person accused the board of not taking their suggestions seriously. Others muttered that the vote had already been determined.

CCPAC member Ed Rutkoski got the crowd's attention when he said over the hubbub, "I'm as frustrated as you are and I volunteered for this." He characterized CCPAC as having no real power in the county planning process.

Applause replaced the audience's complaints when Rutkoski went on to say, "The way I look at it is -- and don't get mad at me, builders -- but you're here for money and money only. ... I'm voting against it. … Enough's enough. You don't need more places out there." He advised the developers to consider the projects "a bad investment" and move on.

Schneider made the motion to recommend approval of the projects with the proviso that the county put "as strong a traffic mitigation as possible" on Stonehouse and Jackson roads.

CCPAC member Bob Ling, a former RMA president and long-time resident, told the group he was listening to them and voted against the resolution. Leandro Ramos Jr., the other Murietan who sits on the board, was unable to attend the meeting.

CCPAC member Anne Tudesko voted to recommend the projects and advised the speakers to consider the supervisors' point of view.

"What I heard from you tonight was passionate but exceedingly negative," she said. "I haven't heard any positive, creative solutions. … How is the board going to look at that? Are they going to perceive you as a bunch of people who are NIMBYs? … I find it very hard to understand why … there can't be some negotiation and compromise to create a project that works for everybody. … It's not that I don't hear you, it's just that what I hear is so tremendously negative, it's hard to be excited about your point of view."

The council's vote is only advice to county planners. It carries no official weight.

The Residences of Murieta Hills subdivision is planned for 216 single family homes and 36 halfplex units, for a total of 256 homes. The 18 halfplexes were added to comply with the county's affordable housing ordinance, which went into effect in January.

The subdivision is located on 145 acres in the northwest part of the community, bounded by Puerto, Escuela and Guadalupe drives.

The Retreat project consists of three parcels totaling about 30 acres located next to the Country Club and the Fairways. A total of 95 single-family homes are planned in a configuration that's similar to the circle-lot concept that was used in Murieta North up until the development of the Fairways, which, like Murieta South, consists of estate lots. The Retreat lots will be square, not round, and the common area around them will be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners association, according to Robert J. Cassano of Cassano Kamilos Homes. Patios will project into the common area, although there is no provision for leasing up to 1,200 square feet of common area, a feature of circle lot ownership sanctioned by the RMA CC&Rs and a county ordinance.

Murieta Hills and the Retreat projects are the first proposals in a development plan for the remaining property in Murieta North owned by the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers.

When he was asked at the meeting why the properties won't annex to the RMA, Cassano gave the same answer he has given since the development plan was first presented to the community five years ago -- the developers need to retain control over the design concept.

"Actually, I can't think of a development of this size in a master-plan environment where a developer does not have significant input or control," said Cassano. The RMDCCC has focused on the annexation as a way to achieve a custom-home development instead of production houses, and to address grading and other issues.

The Mutual Benefit Agreement, a development contract between the RMA and the PTF, limits the build-out of the North to 1,141 units, less than half the 2,326 units in the master plan, calls for the new association's CC&Rs to mirror the RMA's, and requires homeowners to pay a fee equal to RMA dues to the RMA for the maintenance and use of the parks and roads.