From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

Developers score two wins with the county

News brief published Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Story published Thursday, September 28, 2006

Developers scored victories this week when county planning commissions in separate actions voted to approve three projects on the North and one on the South.

The first projects of a development plan proposed for Murieta North six years ago cleared a major hurdle in the county approval process Tuesday when the Policy Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend the county supervisors approve the Residences of Murieta Hills East, the Residences of Murieta Hills West and the Retreat projects. The decision came at the end of a 4½-hour hearing at the county administration building in Sacramento.

The projects will go back to the county Department of Environmental Review and Assessment for preparation of the final environmental impact report. Once the document is completed, the county Board of Supervisors will vote on the projects.

On Monday, the Project Planning Commission gave conceptual approval to a tentative map for Lakeview, a subdivision on the South that was initially approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1993. The final environmental document and the map will come back to the commission for final approval at its Nov. 27 meeting.

The original Lakeview project had 181 lots, while the resubmitted map has 99.

Candy Chand, a member of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee, a group that opposes development plans, said the resubmitted map was “much better,” but raised questions about grading and expansive soil conditions. She showed the commissioners photos of cracks in homes on the South with failed foundations due to expansive clay soil.

Describing the extent of the problem, Mike Winn, vice president of Reynen & Bardis, said, “750 homes into this community, we have had disasters on over 100, going back to purchase 50 homes.  … It just won’t happen again. We relied on soils engineering information and construction standards that proved to be inadequate.”  

He said the homebuilder now uses “the most expensive, well-constructed foundation” and will comply with a condition to test individual lots for expansive soil.  “We’ve been through this once. We would never want to repeat it again,” he said.

The condition is one of more than 60 for the Lakeview project.

Another condition concerns the establishment of a trail system on the South. County parks department staff and the Rancho Murieta Association are working on a route that utilizes the resource protection area, an environmentally sensitive area along the Cosumnes River that was set aside as a buffer in the 1970s. The county has an easement on the land, which is owned by the Pension Trust Fund for the Operating Engineers, the original owner and developer of Rancho Murieta.

“We don’t file a final map until that collaboration (between the RMA and county parks) is complete,” said Winn of the trail plan.

Celine Livengood of the county parks department said the agency wants to protect the area but also allow access to the general public once funds become available for patrols, restroom facilities and parking.

A provision of the Mutual Benefit Agreement between the RMA and the PTF allows the RMA to acquire the resource protection area at no cost. The property includes the pedestrian bridge site, which the PTF deeded to the Community Services District after the RMA declined ownership.

The hearing on Lakeview was sparsely attended, which Chand attributed to the fact that the project had previously been approved.

By contrast, about 40 turned out for the Policy Planning Commission’s second hearing on the North projects the next night. More than a dozen people spoke at the meeting.

The Residences of Murieta Hills East and West are located on 68 acres bounded by Guadalupe, Escuela and Puerto drives. Plans for the property call for a total of 198 single-family homes, with almost half the land preserved as open space, as well as 95 percent of the oak trees.

The Retreat project is planned for 84 single-family homes on three parcels located near the Country Club. The plan has been revised to preserve more open space and trees and to reduce grading. The planning staff report recommended denial of the project because it doesn’t include higher-density, multi-family housing, which developers Robert J. Cassano and Gerry N. Kamilos have argued is not  appropriate for the community or the site.

Many of the speakers and issues were familiar to those who have followed the course of development talks and planning meetings.  Speakers raised issues like annexation, custom versus production homes, grading and compatibility with the existing community, but there were other issues.

• RMDCCC member Ted Hart took a new approach to the lake levels issue by referring to information in the final draft of the Community Services District’s integrated water master plan. The report examines build-out densities for the community and how they affect the use of drinking water Lakes Calero, Chesbro and Clementia in normal and drought years.

The community’s water supply is diverted from the Cosumnes River during the rainy season and stored in the lakes.  The water is drawn down for use by the community during the dry months.

The report shows that Lake Calero currently has a maximum drawdown of 14.8 feet, Chesbro has no drawdown, and Clementia loses about five feet a year due to naturally occurring evaporation.

If the community grows from its current size of about 2,500 homes to 4,354 homes, the number likely under the terms of the Mutual Benefit Agreement, the annual drawdown increases to about 31 feet, the “dead storage” level for the lake. The plan estimates the maximum depth of Calero at 50 feet.

Chesbro would be drawn down about four feet in normal years under this scenario.  Clementia’s drawdown would remain at five feet except in drought years, when the lake would be used as a drinking water lake.  The plan is available here. The comment period ends Oct. 18 and a hearing will be scheduled.

• Department of Environmental Review and Assessment staff defended the draft environmental document for the Residences and the Retreat projects against Chand’s contention that cumulative studies were necessary to provide a full picture of the impacts of the projects and avoid piecemealing.

Chand stressed the legal implications of letters from federal and state agencies that she said support the need for cumulative studies.

• Vince Lepera, president of the Country Club, said the club has submitted two comment letters stating “total opposition to the Retreat projects.”  He cited drainage issues, aesthetics and safety hazards posed by errant golf balls as the reasons.

At one time, the club viewed the Retreat projects as a likely source of new members since they are designed to appeal to affluent empty-nesters.

• As she did at the August hearing, PTF legal counsel Deborah E. Quick opposed mitigation measures proposed in the environmental document for the Community Services District’s wastewater operations.

Her comments and an accompanying letter to the county reflect the ongoing tug-of-war between the CSD and the PTF over solutions to recycled water overflows from golf course irrigation lakes.

The letter states that the PTF “is not currently proposing any development in Rancho Murieta.” 

The CSD is pursuing a tank solution, while the club is working with the PTF on a less costly drainage diversion and permit approach, which the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recently accepted.

The PTF changed key representatives earlier this year and stepped away from negotiations for a “global solution” for future development infrastructure and issues in the cease and desist order several months ago.

The MBA is the development plan for the remaining undeveloped PTF property – about 750 acres.

The five commissioners expressed concerns about the viability of the 1984 master plan for the community but were reluctant to delay the projects before them. “I don’t know that we’re going to get any better answers than we have,” said Lyla Ferris Hanson, the chair.

Although the community “may have outgrown the master plan,” Commissioner William G. Miller said he was “sensitive to the applicant trying to move a reasonable project forward” and didn’t want to stop the process.

Commissioner Kathilynn Carpenter said it came down to making a decision to approve the “same significant and unavoidable impacts on a project by project” or on a cumulative basis.  

Commissioner Katherine Maestas, who cast the dissenting vote on the projects, said,  “It concerns me that we’re coming down to the conversation of the cost of whether or not we should do a master plan … I’m very concerned … Respectfully to the applicant, your project itself I don’t have problems with … “

In a separate action at the meeting, the commissioners unanimously agreed to recommend that county supervisors authorize an update of Rancho Murieta's 1984 master plan.