From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

Community Services District General Manager Ed Crouse provided a packet of information about the community's infrastructure and answered several questions about water availability and sewer capacity.

Second county meeting focuses on map of RM master plan

• Pop-up window: Click for a four-year archive of development coverage -- news, maps, photos and more

Published Sunday, March 6, 2005

The second of the county-facilitated talks between developers and development opponents focused on the map of the community’s master plan, which hasn’t been updated to reflect what’s been built in the community over the past 20 years.

Both the developers and Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee members in attendance Wednesday afternoon agreed on the need for an updated map and for additional map information identifying the most environmentally sensitive areas of the planned unit development.

Developers and development opponents also agreed about low-income housing requirements, which both groups wanted to see satisfied outside the community. The participants were provided with a guide to the county’s new affordable housing ordinance and the ordinance itself before the meeting. (See the document here.)

At the meeting, the group received a packet of information from the Community Services District in response to their request for a presentation on infrastructure. CSD President John Merchant said the district had been asked by RMDCCC members not to participate in the talks and had chosen not to be a participant. As a result, the CSD intends to stay in the background, but will provide data and written responses to questions from the group, he said.

Attorney Jim Wiley of Taylor & Wiley made a presentation about how the builders for the Residences of Murieta Hills and the Retreat properties intend to satisfy the requirements of the affordable housing ordinance. The county Board of Supervisors passed the ordinance in December and it went into effect in January.

An earlier story on RanchoMurieta.com about the county’s new affordable housing ordinance and what it means to Rancho Murieta has been updated to include information presented at the meeting.

Supervisor Don Nottoli said about 150 projects are affected by the new ordinance and the supervisors have received a lot of feedback. At a supervisors’ meeting later this month or in early April, the board will address some of the issues that have been raised, he said.

“This was a process that took two or three years of good, hard work,” said Supervisor Illa Collin. “… We have to think about where people are going to live who don’t make exorbitant salaries. … We’re going to live within the adopted ordinance. … We’re going to learn as we go along on this ordinance.”

Wiley said Cassano Kamilos Homes plans to meet its obligation under the ordinance by qualifying to pay fees totaling $10,000 per unit on the 95-unit Retreat project. That option is not available to projects with 100 or more units. The Residences of Murieta Hills has 238 units. Under the ordinance, 15 percent of the units are required to be low-income housing.

Property owners and builders Woodside Homes and Warmington Homes plan to split 18 corner lots in half and build half-plexes ranging from three to five bedrooms in size to satisfy the requirement. Wiley estimated the homes would sell for $186,000 to $215,000, depending on the number of rooms. The number of lots in the subdivision remains at 238.

According to the ordinance, a maximum of 35 percent of a qualifying household's income can be paid for housing expenses, including mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance, assessments, and, in the case of Rancho Murieta, homeowner fees. These costs help determine the selling price of homes constructed as affordable housing.

Low-income is defined as an income that doesn’t exceed 80 percent of the median household income in Sacramento County, Wiley explained. According to the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, that works out to an income of $35,900 for one person, $41,000 for two, $46,150 for three, and $51,300 for a household of four.

RMDCCC member Ted Hart was applauded by some in the audience of about 40 when he called the idea of building low-income housing in gated communities like Rancho Murieta “insanity” because of the homeowners association dues and other fees that the low-income households will have to pay.

Although there will be more discussion at future meetings, several RMDCCC representatives suggested limiting the amount of time spent on the affordable housing issue. Ron Hand described it as “a monster” and said the time it would take was needed to “discuss the issues that got us here.” Janis Eckard said the ordinance was not an RMDCCC issue, characterizing it as “an issue between the developers, the community and the county.” One of Eckard’s concerns was whether it would be possible to place a lien on the low-income properties or to foreclose for unpaid dues.

The map discussion was prompted by Senior Planner Rob Burness’ presentation about the documents governing development in Rancho Murieta. The information was derived from a report he prepared for the county and delivered at a public workshop at the Board of Supervisors last fall. (See the report here.)

As he had at the supervisors’ meeting, Burness displayed large maps showing development approved for the community in 1969, 1973 and 1984. Under the 1969 master plan, there would have been 7,000 units of housing when the community was built out. That figure drops to 5,000 homes in the later plans.

Each new phase of development was designed in accordance with the master plan and subject to county review and approval. Over the years, the county Board of Supervisors has approved more than two dozen ordinances governing the community’s growth.

Burness said two important changes occurred in 1977 when a special ordinance was approved that “threw out” all previous ordinances for Rancho Murieta. One change allowed flexibility to adjust the densities on the master plan either up or down. The other change, which was made at the request of the Rancho Murieta Association, allowed homeowners the private use of common area through exclusive use agreements. This is what enables people who own a circle lot to put a swimming pool on their property or to landscape the common area around their homes. Burness has previously referred to this as one of the significant changes in the nature of open space in the community.

In 1983, a series of “environmental constraint maps” was prepared by the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers, the owner and developer of the property, in “an attempt at analysis,” Burness said, pointing to several large maps labeled vegetation, soil and slopes. “(The 1984 plan) is the result of that analysis,” he said.

The 1984 master plan, which governs development today, includes a map, zoning designations, and a collection of policies. The policies are “the only written guidance in the plan, other than the map,” Burness commented. One policy, which calls for a lower overall density in the northeast portion of the development, is “very relevant,” he told the group. The policy states that concerns about “environmental sensitivity” limit development in that area to a maximum of 800 single-family units. The exact location of the area referred to in the policy isn’t clear.

In 1993, the development of the South was reflected in the ordinances, but not on the map of the master plan. According to Burness, the most significant changes at that time were the adoption of a different kind of grading and the abandonment of the circle lot concept in favor of a standard lot pattern. The Planning Department had recommended keeping the circle lots to allow resources on the South “to be treated sensitively,” but the RMA opposed them.

Burness clarified the open space figures he presented in his report to the supervisors last fall to answer questions raised by members of the RMDCCC. The open space figures were derived by comparing the land uses called for on the 1973 master plan with the ones on the 1984 master plan. The comparison fails to support the RMDCCC’s contention that 1,806 acres of open space separate from parks, lakes and golf courses were included in the 1973 plan.

RMDCCC member Tom Brierton said at the board of supervisors meeting last November that the computer-generated maps depicting land uses and open space in the 1973 and 1984 master plans were suspect because an engineering firm paid by the developers had created them. At Wednesday’s meeting, Burness disagreed, saying he was responsible for providing the information to the engineering firm and any issues about the maps “would be with my analysis, not the engineer’s.”

After a lengthy discussion, the 15 participants at the table decided to take a “windshield tour” of the community from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on the day of the next meeting, scheduled for March 16. Equipped with aerial maps of the property, they hope to get a sense of the land that will help them understand “what has been built on, what can’t be built on, what shouldn’t be built on” as RMDCCC member Eckard put it.

Developer Gerry Kamilos, who is participating in the talks as both a property owner and as the PTF’s representative, said those determinations are made during the planning process as part of the environmental review for a project. He said the developers considered the master plan and ordinances and did “substantial analysis” in designing the two projects now under review, taking into account site sensitivities.

CSD General Manager Ed Crouse provided the group with information about how the community’s infrastructure is financed. He said the CSD sponsored two bond districts, but “The district does not assume any responsibility for that debt. It is entirely placed on the property.”

The bond district formed in 1986 assessed undeveloped North properties, all of Rancho Murieta South and undeveloped commercial and industrial property for $19 million in infrastructure costs. This financed the construction of the second phase of the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant. Although these projects benefited existing residents in Units 1 through 4, the burden of payment was placed on the owner of the undeveloped land and future homeowners. The bonds for this district have been paid off.

The 1992 community facilities district generated $12.8 million to pay for infrastructure projects on the South “as well as full build-out capacity for a variety of water and wastewater” projects, including the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, Crouse said. South developers made up a shortfall of $6.6 million with a letter of credit.

Crouse said developers on the North and South will finance the expansion of the water plant at a cost of $8 million to $10 million “to serve both their existing development and future development, whatever that may be.” The plant expansion will supply the community’s needs for household water at full build-out.

Crouse briefly discussed how the community draws its allotment of water from the Cosumnes River between November 1 and May 31 under the water rights it has been granted. The water is stored in on-site reservoirs, Lakes Chesbro, Calero and Clementia, which were constructed for that purpose.

The community has sufficient water to meet build-out needs, but has to add 1,400-acre-feet of storage to get through a 200-year drought like the one that occurred in 1976-77, Crouse explained. Developers pay a water supply augmentation fee of $3,600 per unit to provide funds “to build whatever augmentation supply is necessary for full build-out.”

When RMDCCC member Brad Sample attempted to question Crouse about compliance issues for the wastewater treatment plant, Crouse replied that it was not the appropriate time to discuss the issues.

The day before the meeting, Sample sent a letter to the CSD about those issues. At the suggestion of Rob Burness, who received a copy of the e-mail, Sample agreed to discuss the issues in a meeting with Burness and Crouse instead of at last week’s public meeting. Sample first brought up these concerns at the Board of Supervisors meeting last fall. At that time, the CSD responded with a public statement and a letter to the county. Sample’s issues and the CSD’s statement were published in the RanchoMurieta.com reader forum and can be read here.

The materials provided to participants in the talks will be made available to the public, Burness said in response to a request from the audience Wednesday. The route of the community tour will also be made available.